EOR Methods

Best Method for Enhanced Oil Recovery from Sarvak Reservoir and
Analyse Sensitive Parameters

Arzhang Nabilou

Thesis to obtain the Master of Science Degree in

Petroleum Engineering

Supervisors: Prof. Amilcar de Oliveira Soares

Prof. Asghar Gandomkar

Examination Committee

Chairperson: Prof. Maria Teresa da Cruz Carvalho

Supervisor: Prof. Amilcar de Oliveira Soares
Member of the Committee: Eng. Luís Filipe Pratas Guerreiro

September 2016
II
Acknowledgment

I would like to thank my parents for their friendship, Encouragement and caring over
all these years, for always being there for me through thick and thin and without
whom this project could not be possible

I would also acknowledge my dissertation supervisors Prof. Amilcar Soares and Prof.
Asghar Gandomkar for their insight, support and sharing of knowledge that has
made this thesis possible.

At the end I want to thank Research & Development Department of the National
Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), for data access and financial support of this study.

III
IV
Abstract

By increasing in the use of nonrenewable energy and decreasing in discovering hydrocarbon

reservoirs, in near future the world will encounter with a new challenge in the field of energy,
so increase in recovery factor of the existing oil reservoirs is necessary after the primary
production. In one hand the existence of untouched heavy oil reservoirs in Iran and lack of
producing from them and maturity of light oil reservoirs to 2nd and 3rd stage of their
production age in other hand make the development and production of these heavy oil
reservoirs necessary in Iran. The goal of this study is to survey common methods of
producing oil reservoirs and emphasizing the advantages and limitations of these methods'
appliance in heavy oil reservoirs of Iran especially in Kuh-e-Mund.

There are a lot of EOR methods and for choosing the best method we should consider
factors such as the reservoir fluid and rock characteristics, availability of injection material,
available equipments and other items. One way to choose an optimized method is the
comparison of reservoirs’ parameters in successful EOR projects with the considered
reservoir. However, it should be consider that each reservoir has its especial characteristics
and we cannot give certain idea about it. In the first section of this thesis, the processes of
gas injection, water injection, chemical methods, water alternative gas injection, microbial
ways, open recovery, condensed recovery, the set of thermal ways and other ways and new
technologies and an introduction about oil recovery in fractured reservoirs are studied. The
most common way for recovery of heavy oil reservoirs’ is thermal ways which have the most
usage in the recovery of the world’s heavy oil and between these; steam injection in different
ways with the most amount of oil production has terrific importance. Other thermal ways
such as thermal combustion and electromagnetic and electric heat in practice, some studies
and experiments have been doing in reservoirs. Now ways especially in heavy oil reservoirs
in order to improve and increase oil recovery have been studied, for example we can point to
horizontal wells technology. The gained results show that the best way for recovery heavy oil
of Sarvak reservoir of Kuh-e-Mund is thermal way and especially steam injection (under
optimum conditions of quality and steam nature and the model of production and injection
wells paths). Steam modeling by activating gravity drainage drive process by using steam
injection (SAGD) which is designed in a reservoir model in Sarvak reservoir of Kuh-e-Mund
Mountain has been successful.

Keywords

EOR, SAGD, SARVAK reservoir, Kuh-e-Mund

V
VI
Contents Page
Chapter 1 Introduction

1-1- Different kinds of reservoirs recovery 2

1-2- Recovery parameters screening 2

Chapter 2 Primary methods of production from the reservoir

2-1- natural mechanisms 6

2-1-1- Water drive mechanism 6

2-1-2- Gas cap drive mechanism 7

2-1-3- Solution gas drive 7

2-1-4- Gravity drainage drive 8

2-1-5- Drive mechanism affected by reservoir compaction 8

2-1-6- Combination drive mechanism 8

2-2- Reservoir pressure maintenance mechanism 9

2-2-1- Water injection in order to maintain pressure 9

2-2-2- Gas injection in order to maintain pressure 10

Chapter 3 Methods of advanced enhanced oil recovery (EOR)

3-1- Gas injection in miscible way 11

3-1-1- Nitrogen and flue gases 11

3-1-2- hydrocarbon gas injection 12

2
3-1-3- CO injection 13

3-2- gas injection in immiscible way 15

3-3- water injection 15

3-3-1- Water flood Progression 17

3-3-2- injection paths 17

3-3-3- Permeability 18

3-4- injection of chemical materials, polmirogel 19

3-4-1- Polymer injection 20

3-5- water and gas alternative injection (WAG) 22

3-6- Microbial methods 24

3-7- Recovery in fractured reservoirs 26

nd
3-7-1- Fractured reservoirs of 2 type 27

3-7-2- Fractured reservoirs type 3 29

VII
 Chapter 4 Heavy oil reservoir recovery methods

4-1- Heavy oil definition 32

4-2- heavy oil in the world 32

4-3- heavy oil in Iran 32

4-4- recovery of heavy oil 34

4-4-1- Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) 35

4-4-2- Surface mining 36

4-4-3- Thermal methods 37

4-4-4- Combustion in situ 37

4-4-5- steam injection 39

4-4-6-Cyclic Steam Simulation/Injection, Steam Soaked, HuffandPuff 40

4-4-7- Water flooding by steam 42

4-4-8- Hot water injection 42

4-4-9- SAGD process 42

4-4-10- VAPEX process 45

Chapter 5 the process of oil recovery from kuh-e-Mund field

5-1- The structural situation of kuh-e-mund field 48

5-2- Reservoir and Fluid Properties of the Kuh-e Mond 50

5-3- STOIIP 51

5-4- Petrophysical Modeling 52

5-5- Best enhanced oil recovery method for Kuh-e-Mund field of Sarvak reservoir 53

5-6- Steam injection simulation with SAGD method in Kuh-e-mund field 55

5-6-1- Thermodynamic properties of oil and steam 55

5-6-2- Steam quality 56

5-7- Research method 59

5-7-1- The model description 59

5-7-2 The model network 60

5-7-3- Properties of the reservoir rocks and fluid 60

5-8- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 62

5-8-1- Base Case Analysis 64

VIII
5-8-2- Steam Injection rate 64

5-8-3- Cost Analysis 67

5-8-4- The position of injection and production wells in the reservoir 68

5-8-5- Surveying the distance between injection and production wells (Vertical) 71

5-8-6- The survey of matrix porosity 74

5-8-7- The survey of matrix permeability 76

Chapter 6 Conclusion and recommendations

6-1- Conclusion 79

6-2- Recommendations 80

References 81

Appendix 1 simulation raw data IX

Appendix 2 simulation code v

IX
List of Figures Page
Figure 1-1- the study of enhanced oil recovery project, by considering depth and API 5

Figure 1-2- oil recovery rate in each method 5

Figure 2-1- Bottom water Drive 6

Figure 2-2- Edge water Drive 6

Figure 2-3- Gas cap Drive 7

Figure 2-4- Solution gas Drive mechanism 7

Figure 2-5: gravity drainage drive mechanism 8

Figure 2-6-: combination drive 9

Figure 2-7-: Reservoir pressure and GOR trends for first three drive mechanism 9

Figure 2-8-: water injection to reservoir in small fields (left) - water injection in large fields (Right) 10

Figure 2-9-: Gas injection in gas cap 10

Figure 3-1- Nitrogen injection 12

Figure 3-2- hydrocarbon gas injection 13

2
Figure 3-3- CO injection 14

Figure 3-4- water injection 16

Figure 3-5- Water flood progression (William M. Cobb & Associates, Inc.) 18

Figure 3-6- injection paths 18

Figure 3-7- Permeability of different layer (William M. Cobb & Associates, Inc) 19

Figure 3-8- Polymer injection 20

Figure 3-9- Fingering effect promoted by the unfavorable mobility ratio (top), and good oil recovery facilitated by
the use of polymer flooding (bottom) 22

Figure 3-10- water and gas alternative injection 23

Figure 3-11- microbial injection 25

Figure 3-12- final recovery rate in studied fractured reservoirs 28

Figure 3-13- final recovery rate in fractured reservoirs type 2 after using enhanced oil recovery methods 29

Figure 3-14- final recovery rate in fractured reservoir type 3 after using enhanced oil recovery methods 31

Figure 4-1- Thermal in situ combustion 37

Figure 4-2- Steam injection 39

Figure 4-3- Cyclic steam stimulation. Left: Steam injection. Right: Production 41

Figure 4-4- A perspective of SAGD project by using two horizontal wells 43

X
Figure 4-5- Mechanism in SAGD process 44

Figure 4-6- A perspective of VAPEX mechanism 45

Figure 5-1- A perspective of M field earth zone (Google earth) 48

Figure 5-2- Lithostratigraphic column of the reservoirs at the Kuhe-e-Mond HO field 49

Figure 5-3- A perspective of layered structure and anticline structures of M field 50

Figure 5-4- map of average Reservoir properties, effective porosity (left), and Water saturation (right) and oil in
situ (bottom) 52

Figure 5-5- Pressure vs. Enthalpy for water, showing phase, steam quality and temperatures as isotherms
55

Figure 5-6- the steam specific volume to saturation pressure 57

Figure 5-7- the steam specific volume to saturation temperature 57

Figure 5-8- Reservoir simulation model 59

Figure 5-9- The range of oil special weight changes at temperature in the reservoir 60

Figure 5-10- The range of viscosity changes at temperature 60

Figure 5-11- Porosity distribution in the reservoir 61

Figure 5-12- Recovery factor of base case in 10 year 62

Figure 5-13- total produced water of base case in 10 years 62

Figure 5-14- cumulative produced oil of base case in 10 years 62

Figure 5-15- Oil recovery range in 10 years 63

Figure 5-16- Oil recovery range in 1 year 64

Figure 5-17- The total range of produced oil in ten years at different injection Rate 64

Figure 5-18- total range of produced oil at different injection Rate in different times 65

Figure 5-19- total range of produced oil in ten years at water cut 66

Figure 5-20- The comparison of water cut between Rate 15 and 20 barrels for everyday 67

Figure 5-21- The cost range at total produced oil in each injection Rate 67

Figure 5-22- Economic analysis of total range of produced oil in relation with cost increase toward injection Rate
increase. 68

Figure 5-23- The rate of oil recovery by attending to the location of injection and production wells 69

Figure 5-24- The range of daily production oil by attending to the location of injection and production wells 70

Figure 5-25- The total range of produced oil by considering the location of production and injection wells 70

Figure 5-26- The total range of produced water by considering the location of production and injection wells 71

Figure 5-27- The range of oil recovery by considering vertical distance of production and injection wells 72

Figure 5-28- The range of daily oil production by considering vertical distance of production and injection wells 72

XI
Figure 5-29- The total range of produced oil by considering vertical distance of production and injection wells 73

Figure 5-30- total range of produced water by considering vertical distance of production and injection wells 73

Figure 5-31- The range of oil recovery at porosity changes 74

Figure 5-32- The range of daily oil production at porosity changes 75

Figure 5-33- The total range of produced oil at porosity differences 75

Figure 5-34- The total range of produced water at porosity differences 76

Figure 5-35- The rate of oil recovery at permeability changes 77

Figure 5-36- The rate of daily oil production at permeability changes 77

Figure 5-37- The total range of oil production at permeability changes 78

Figure 5-38- The total range of water production at permeability changes 78

XII
List of Tables Page
Table 1-1- recovery parameters bolter for enhanced oil recovery methods 4

Table 3-1- suitable parameters in order to run flue gases and nitrogen gas injection projects 11

Table 3-2 proper parameters for applying hydrocarbon gas injection project in a miscible way 17
2
Table 3-3- proper parameters to apply CO gas injection project in a miscible way 18
2
Table 3-4- the study of relation between depth and gravity to apply CO gas injection project 19

Table 3-5- suitable parameters for immiscible transfer 19

Table 3-6- proper parameters to apply water injection project 22

Table 3-7- proper parameters to apply WAG project 23

Table 3-8- Microorganism, their metabolites and applications in MEOR 24

Table 3-9- Proper parameters to apply microbial project 27

Table 3-10- A number of reservoir type 2 in the world 29

Table 3-11- number of reservoirs type 3 in the world 30

Table 4-1- heavy oil definition 32

Table 4-2- Known resources of heavy oils in the world 32

Table 4-3- Known resources of heavy oils 33

Table 4-4- Observed resources of heavy oil in South-West zones of Iran 34

Table 4-5- proper parameter to apply cold production project 36

Table 4-6- proper parameter to apply mining and production project 36

Table 4-7- proper parameters to apply thermal combustion parameters 38

Table 4-8- proper parameters to apply steam injection project 40

Table 4-9- proper parameters to apply cycle system simulation project (NIOC) 41

Table 4-10- proper parameters to apply SAGD project 44

Table 4-11- Proper parameters to apply VAPEX project 47

Table 4-12- Natural Gas and Fresh Water Consumption in VAPEX and SAGD 48

Table 5-1- A summary of Kuh-e-Mund field status 51

Table 5-2- Volume calculation report of Sarvak formation zones 52

Table 5-3- Heavy Oil Production Technologies and Technical Screening Criteria 55

Table 5-4- the reservoir dimensions 61

Table 5-5- Properties of the reservoir rock and fluid 62

XIII
Table 5-6- The steam cost for different injection Rate 69

List of Abbreviation

Abbreviation Stand for

API American Petroleum Institute

ASP Alkaline compound, Surfactant and Polymer

CHOPS Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand

CMG CamputerModelling Group

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CSS Cyclic Steam Simulation

ES-SAGD Expanding Solvent Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery

GOR Gas Oil Ratio

HCPV Hydrocarbon Pore Volume

IFT Interfacial Tension

MEOR Microbial Enhanced oil Recovery

MMP Minimum Miscibility Pressure

ISC In-situ combustion

Md MilliDarcy

PEDEC Petroleum Engineering and Development Company

RF Recovey Factor

SAGD Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

SP Surfactant Polymer

SOR Steam Oil Ratio

STOIIP Stock tank oil initially in place

Vapex Vapor Assisted Petroleum Extraction

PV Pore volume

WASP Water Alternative Steam Process

XIV
 Chapter one

Introduction

1-1- Different kinds of reservoirs recovery

The first issues in definitions are about the way of enhanced oil recovery in the
last of 19th century, and after sometimes and technology improvement, these
definitions have been more universal. One of the theories about the definition of
enhanced oil recovery ways which has a long time history classifies different
kinds of recovery as follows:
1- Primary recovery
2- Secondary recovery
3- Tertiary recovery

Primary recovery in this classification is the only use of reservoir natural energy and
second recovery is also each recovery which is done after the primary recovery in
order to maintain reservoir pressure which usually includes water injection or gas
injection.

Each mechanism which is done after the secondary recovery in order to produce the
retained oil is called the tertiary recovery.

Today, advanced enhanced oil recovery methods are considered as the replace of
2nd and 3rd stages, based on the idea of many scientists. This classification is as
follow:

1- Primary recovery : which is called as the use of all natural mechanisms in

production from the reservoir and mechanisms which are formed in order to
maintain the pressure in the reservoir;
2- Enhanced oil recovery in advanced ways (EOR): which are all the ways that
have been done after primary recovery in order to production from the
reservoirs?

1-2- Recovery parameters screening

2
The use of enhanced oil recovery, by considering oil production reduction, is
necessary more than every other time. So choosing the best way to increase oil
recovery has more important role. The screening of enhanced oil recovery
parameters involves all of the enhanced oil recovery methods. In these methods, the
information from all around the world projects has been gathered and the reservoir
characteristics and oil properties which are involved in this successful action will be
studied and surveyed.

Oil Recovery Factor in finished and / or running projects will be studied in this
method and the results will be drawing such as curves. The goal of screening the
recovery criteria at first is related to the results that are gained from the field and
secondly recovery mechanisms. In this status, the way of using each recovery
mechanism is studied in summary and the relation between them is described.
Although the selection of injected material has been studied for a long time, oil
engineers should still be careful in selecting the method which has the best oil
production from the reservoir by considering the costs.

In recent years, computer had an important role in improving the use of recovery
methods, although the value of using the computer applications depends on the
accuracy of input information.

Here, our goal is to prepare a rational confine from the real parameters which can be
used in field management by advancing new computer software.

In table 1-1 recovery parameters screening is shown shortly for common methods of
EOR. The experiences have shown that the best methods in considered reservoir
are those which have economic justification about the rate of their recovery. The best
methods which have the best recovery factor in reasonable cost are 2 main methods
of water injection (including thermal such as steam or chemical) or one of the low
cost gases.

For some methods (such as polymer) the possibility of technical success is very
much in detection but the success is low in economical point of view. If the oil price
increases we can hope that most of the methods will be profitable. One of the ways
of studying the enhanced oil recovery methods is to study them based on depth
changes and API degree of oil. For this purpose, a great number of the world

3
enhanced oil recovery projects are shown in figure 1-1, as it is clear from the figure,
the process of method selection can changes from one project to another one by
considering the depth of reservoirs and API degree of the heavy oil.

Table 1-1- recovery parameters for enhanced oil recovery methods (NIOC)

The amount of production oil in each method is shown generally in figure 1-2. The
continue of oil production by using thermal methods (specially steam injection) in this
figure is very clear, it should be noted that the greatest project of enhanced oil
recovery in the world is steam injection that was running in Duri field in Indonesia
and produces more than 245000 barrels daily.

4
 Figure 1-1- the study of enhanced oil recovery project, by considering depth and API (Halliburton)

2500
(thousands of barrels per day)

2000
Production Rate

1500
Total EOR
Thermal
1000
Miscible

500 chemical

0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year

Figure 1-2- oil recovery rate in each method - National Iranian Oil company (NIOC)

In this thesis, by considering available information it is tried to specify the parameters of all
methods, but it should be attended that each reservoir in the world has its especial
characteristics and we cannot give a certain idea about it.

5
 Chapter 2

Primary methods of production from the reservoir

2-1- natural mechanisms

During primary recovery the natural energy of the reservoir is used to transport
hydrocarbons towards and out of the production wells. There are several different energy
sources, and each gives rise to a drive mechanism. Early in the history of a reservoir the
drive mechanism will not be known. It is determined by analysis of production data (reservoir
pressure and fluid production ratios). The earliest possible determination of the drive
mechanism is a primary goal in the early life of the reservoir, as its knowledge can greatly
improve the management and recovery of reserves from the reservoir in its middle and later
life. There are five important drive mechanisms (or combinations). These are:

1. Water drive
2. Gas cap drive
3. Solution gas drive
4. Gravity drainage
5. reservoir compaction
6. Combination or mixed drive

2-1-1- Water drive mechanism

Some reservoirs have communication with a water zone (aquifer) underneath. When
reservoir pressure drops due to production, the compressed water in an aquifer expands into
a reservoir and it helps pressure maintenance. This mechanism is called “water drive”.
Water drive mechanism will be effective if an aquifer contacting reservoir is very
large because water compressibility is very low. For example, an anticline structure with
extensive water zone (aquifer) will have the most advantage from the use of a water drive
mechanism. Water drive mechanism is a very good drive and reservoirs can produce oil over
50% recover factors in many cases.

Figure 2-1- Bottom water Drive - Figure 2-2- Edge water Drive
(wiki.aapg.org/drive_mechanisms_and_recovery)

6
2-1-2- Gas cap drive mechanism

In hydrocarbon reservoirs with gas cap, the gas cap expansion applies a force to the oil
column after production and reduction of reservoir pressure. This pressure is the main
production mechanism which is called drive by gas cap. During production from this kind of
reservoirs, reservoir pressure and oil production reduce with constant rate but the ratio of
gas to oil (GOR) increases. This mechanism with recovery factor about 25% to 50%, in sand
reservoirs has a weaker role than water drive mechanism.

Figure 2-3- Gas cap Drive- (wiki.aapg.org/drive_mechanisms_and_recovery)

2-1-3- Solution gas drive

When reservoir pressure reaches a bubble point, oil becomes saturated and free gas will present
in a reservoir. The expansion of gas is a main energy to produce reservoir fluid for the solution
gas drive. At the beginning, the produced gas oil ratio will be slightly decline because free gas in
a reservoir cannot move until it goes over the critical gas saturation. Then gas will begin to flow
into a well. In some cases, where vertical permeability is high, gas may migrate up and become a
secondary gas cap, which helps oil production. Typical recovery factor from the solution gas
drive reservoir is about 5 – 30%.

Figure 2-4- Solution gas Drive mechanism- (wiki.aapg.org/drive_mechanisms_and_recovery)

7
2-1-4- Gravity drainage drive

The density differences between oil and gas and water result in their natural segregation in
the reservoir. This process can be used as a drive mechanism, but is relatively weak, and in
practice is only used in combination with other drive mechanisms. Figure 2-5 shows
production by gravity drainage. However, it is extremely efficient over long periods and can
give rise to extremely high recoveries. Consequently, it is often used in addition to the other
drive mechanisms.

Figure 2-5: gravity drainage drive mechanism (wiki.aapg.org/drive_mechanisms_and_recovery)

2-1-5- Drive mechanism affected by reservoir compaction

The oil within the reservoir pore space is compressed by the weight of overlying sediments
and the pressure of the fluids they contain. If fluid is withdrawn from the reservoir, then it is
possible that the pressure depletion in the pore space attributable to the production of fluid
can be compensated for by the overlying sediments compacting lower sediments such as
those of the reservoir production zone. The impact of this is to create a reduction in porosity
and thus a potential compression effect.

2-1-6- Combination drive mechanism

Most of the fields work with more than one mechanism. The most common combination of
drives is solved gas drive (with or without gas free cap) with a weak water drive. When the
free gas cap is combined with active water drive, combination drive has more efficiency.

Producing through theses mechanisms has been applied well in internal areas of northern
America, Northern sea, Northern Africa and Indonesia.

8
 Figure 2-6-: combination drive (wiki.aapg.org/drive_mechanisms_and_recovery)

The reservoir pressure and GOR trends for each of the main (first) three drive mechanisms
is shown as Figures 2-7 .Note particularly that water drive maintains has the reservoir
pressure much higher than the gas drives, and has a uniformly low GOR.

Figure 2-7-: Reservoir pressure and GOR trends for first three drive mechanism (NIOC)

2-2- Reservoir pressure maintenance mechanism

The second stage of Hydrocarbon production during which an external fluid such as water or
gas is injected into the reservoir through injection wells located in rock that has fluid
communication with production wells. The purpose of secondary recovery is to maintain
reservoir pressure and to displace hydrocarbon toward the wellbore. Two techniques are
commonly used:

1. Water Injection
2. Gas Injection

2-2-1- Water injection in order to maintain pressure

In small oil fields which are shown in figure 2-8, pressure preserving by water injection in
water layers at edge of reservoir is efficient, But in great field, injection should be done all
over the water layer (figure 2-8), in this status water zones can be formed in reservoir and
advancing of these zones in oil reservoir, help pressure increase and oil drive toward
production wells.

9
Water injection has several advantages such as frequency in the ground surface, low price,
easy to inject and having the characteristics of a reservoir natural fluid.

Figure 2-8-: water injection to reservoir in small fields (left) - water injection in large fields (Right) (NIOC)

2-2-2- Gas injection in order to maintain pressure

As you see in figure 2-9, gas injection is formed in gas cap center. In this kind of injection,
the pressure of injective gas is relatively low and surface tension is fixed between phases. In
large field, gas injection should be done in all over the reservoir, as what was said about
water injection, it can create gas zones which result in pressure increase and oil drive toward
the production well. It should be considered that gas injection is very effective, when the
reservoir natural drive mechanism is gravity drainage mechanism. The injection of natural
gas has been decreased in all over the world, because of using it as heat and fuel.

Figure 2-9-: Gas injection in gas cap (Advanced CERT Canada Inc.)

01
 Chapter three

Methods of advanced enhanced oil recovery (EOR)

3-1- Gas injection in miscible way

Gas injection is the most widely applied EOR process for light oils. Oil recoveries for gas
injection processes are usually greatest when the process is operated under conditions
where the gas can become miscible with the reservoir oil. The primary objective of miscible
gas injection is to improve local displacement efficiency and reduce residual oil saturation
below the levels typically obtained by waterflooding. Examples of miscible gas injection are
CO2 or N2 at sufficiently high pressure, dry gas enriched with sufficient quantities of LPG
components, and sour or acid gases containing H2S.

3-1-1- Nitrogen and flue gases

Compact air, nitrogen and produced gases are the cheapest gases. The combination of
these gases also can be injected, because the minimum miscible pressure of these gases is
close to each other so they can be used continually for oil recovery. Beside, corrosion was a
problem resulted in better preference of nitrogen injection rather than other produced gases.

Parameter confine in running

Parameter Desirable
projects
Oil API degree - 35-54
Oil viscosity ˂0.4 0.07-0.3
High percentage of it, are formed from light
Oil combination
hydrocarbons
Oil saturation rate
˃40 59-80
(%)
Sand rock or carbonate rocks or low fracture with
Reservoir rock
high permeability
Reservoir Net Relatively with low Net Thickness unless it is
Thickness(ft) inclined
Depth (ft) ˃6000 10000-18500
Permeability (md) It is not criterion
It’s not important, although there is high heat
o
Temperature (f ) degree and pressure in those reservoirs which are
located in high depths
Table 3-1- suitable parameters in order to run flue gases and nitrogen gas injection projects (NIOC)

Beside, its low price and availability is another advantage toward other similar gases.
Unfortunately, since minimum miscible pressure is high, the possibility of its injection is just
in deep reservoirs.

00
Mechanisms

Mechanisms which occur in this method include:

1- Steaming of light ingredients of oil and creating miscibility in high and enough
pressure
2- Creating gas drive in a place in which a large part of reservoir volume is full of gas
3- Increase of gravity drainage drive which occurs in inclined reservoir.

Figure 3-1- Nitrogen injection (Advanced CERT Canada Inc.)

Limitations and problems

Since proper miscible ability is formed with light oil and in high pressure, so this action is
done in deep reservoirs. In inclined reservoirs, gravity drainage drive role can be
determinant in low permeability. Corrosion makes problem in produced gas injection but at
present time, in those projects which produced gas is used formally, nitrogen is used
successfully.

3-1-2- hydrocarbon gas injection

Before introducing the concepts of minimum miscible pressure, hydrocarbon injection had
been used for many years. In necessary pressure part, hydrocarbon located between
nitrogen that needs high pressure and CO2 that needs intermediate pressure for miscible
replacement. In this case, methane is completely correct, anyway in a low depth reservoir

02
which has low pressure it can be done by increase in the percentage of saturated
hydrocarbons (C2 – C4). If it is reasonable economically, in those places in which CO2 is not
available (such as Canada) It is a good choice for EOR.

Mechanisms:

Different methods which are used in hydrocarbon gas injection include:

Enriched gas injection, lean gas injection, gas injection in high pressure, LPG injection

Figure 3-2- hydrocarbon gas injection (Advanced CERT Canada Inc.)

We can inject some other gases for EOR in miscible way like: Enriched gas, Lean gas
injection and LPG (liquid petroleum gas).

3-1-3- CO2 injection

The EOR technique that is attracting the most new market interest is CO2-EOR. First tried in
1972 in Scurry County, Texas, CO2 injection has been used successfully throughout the
Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New Mexico, and is now being pursued. Until
recently, most of the CO2 used for EOR has come from naturally-occurring reservoirs. But
new technologies are being developed to produce CO2 from industrial applications such as
natural gas processing, fertilizer, ethanol, and hydrogen plants in locations where naturally
occurring reservoirs are not available. When we inject CO2 into an oil reservoir, it becomes
mutually soluble with the residual crude oil as light hydrocarbons from the oil dissolve in the
CO2 and CO2 dissolves in the oil. When the injected CO2 and residual oil are miscible, the

03
 physical forces holding the two phases apart (interfacial tension) effectively disappears. This
enables the CO2 to displace the oil from the rock pores, pushing it towards a producing well
just as a cleaning solvent would remove oil from reservoir rocks.

2
Figure 3-3- CO injection (Advanced CERT Canada Inc)

Limitations and problems

We need a good and cheap source of CO2; meanwhile, there are corrosion problems,
especially if CO2 is seen in production well.

Parameter confine in running

Parameter Desirable extent
projects
Oil API degree ˃22 27-44
Oil viscosity ˂10 0.3-6
Oil composition High percentage of intermediates (C5 to C12)
Oil saturation degree ˃40 15-70

Reservoir rock type Relatively thin sandstone or carbonate unless

dipping
Reservoir Net It is not criterion but the injection rate should be
Thickness(ft) sufficient and continuous
For miscible displacement, depth must be great
Depth (ft) and enough to allow injection pressures greater than the
o 4040-15900
temperature (f ) MMP, which increase with temperature and for
heavier oils.
2
Table 3-2- proper parameters to apply CO gas injection project in a miscible way (NIOC)

It should be considered that depth depends on oil gravity rate. So in table 3-4- this relation is
studied in more detail.

04
 Injection kind Oil API degree Desirable depth (major) ft
More than 40 2500
32-39.9 2800
Miscible injection 28-31.9 3300
22-27.9 4000
Less than 22 Mix is not possible
13-21.9 1800
Immiscible injection
Less than 13 Injection fails in any depth
2
Table 3-3- the study of relation between depth and gravity to apply CO gas injection project (NIOC)

3-2- gas/CO2 injection in immiscible way

When insufficient reservoir pressure is available or the reservoir’s oil composition is less
favorable (heavier), the injected carbon dioxide will not become miscible with the reservoir’s
oil. Then, another oil displacement mechanism, immiscible carbon dioxide flooding, occurs.
The immiscible carbon dioxide flooding process has considerable potential for the recovery
of moderately viscous oils, which are unsuited for the application of thermal recovery
techniques. The main mechanisms involved in immiscible carbon dioxide flooding are: 1. Oil
phase swelling which is as a result of oil saturation with carbon dioxide. 2. Viscosity
reduction of the swollen oil and carbon dioxide mixture.

Parameter Desirable extent

Oil API degree ˃12
Oil viscosity ˂600
Oil compound Is not criterion
Oil saturation degree (%) ˃35
Reservoir rock type Is not criterion
Main Net Thickness(ft) If the inclined is suitable and vertical relative permeability is good
Permeability (md) Is not criterion
Depth (ft) ˃1800
o
Temperature degree (f ) Is not criterion
Table 3-4- suitable parameters for immiscible transfer (NIOC)

3-3- water injection

One of the most common methods for increasing production from an oil reservoir is water
injection to the reservoir; in this method water acts as a piston and drive oil forward. Since oil
and water are immiscible so this transfer is called immiscible transfer, finally water bank
receive to production wells and much water percentage is produced by reduction of oil
percentage. If the production is not economical the injection should not be continued.

05
Usually sufficient water injection needs too much time, to fill reservoir pores and produce a
great volume of oil. It is possible that several months pass from starting of a water injection
process but we don’t have significant production increase. Usually in these projects, we will
have maximum recovery after 2 to 5 years.

Figure 3-4- water injection (Advanced CERT Canada Inc)

The items which should be considered in applying water flooding project are as follows:

1- Water should be able to flow toward the reservoir in the same rate as oil and
producing fluids from the reservoir, so the reservoir rock should have suitable
permeability.
2- Every chemical material which has effect on rock and reservoir fluids and causes
action like solved Oxygen, should be removed from the injective water in order to
prevent any reaction.
3- The type of rock and reservoir characteristics should be surveyed completely, such
as permeability.
4- The existence of high saturated gas and water areas that create canal should be
studied.
5- The existence of the areas which have high or low permeability and cause insufficient
injection should be studied.
6- Coning effect in water injection should be corrected and studied.

06
3-3-1- Waterflood Progression:

 Time 1- Early in life of waterflood. Producer making 100% oil.

 Time 2 - Still relatively early in life of waterflood. Water banks expanding, but
producer still making 100% oil.
 Time 3 - Mid-life of the waterflood. Water has reached the producing well. Producer
now makes oil and water.
 Time 4 - Late in the life of the waterflood. Producer now making large volume of
water compared to the oil volume.

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Figure 3-5- Waterflood progression (William M. Cobb & Associates, Inc.)

3-3-2- injection paths:

There are several basic well patterns that are commonly used waterfloods, as listed below
(Fig3-6). Each pattern results in unique waterflood performance.

The items which should be considered in the selection of injection path:

1- Maximum rate of oil production

2- Optimizing the rate of injective water, in reaching the best oil recovery efficiency or,
minimum rate of water injection and maximum rate of oil production.
3- Reservoir heterogeneousness in relation with permeability in different points,
reservoir rock fracture, inclined and other items should be considered.

07
 4- Having maximum consistency with available drilled wells and requiring fewer wells to
drill.
5- Factors such as proper place for pitching injection facilities and other items in relation
with injection operations should be consistent with injection path

Figure 3-6- injection paths (NIOC)

Parameter Suitable extent

Oil API degree ˃25
Cp viscosity ˂30
Oil compound Is not criterion
The type of reservoir rock Sand rock or carbonate
Reservoir Net Thickness(ft) Is not criterion
Permeability (md) Is not criterion
Transmissibility Is not criterion
Depth Is not criterion
o
Temperature (f ) Is not criterion
Table 3-5- proper parameters to apply water injection project (NIOC)

3-3-3- Permeability

Permeability, measured in milidarcy (md), is a measurement of a rock’s ability to transmit

fluid. Water injection rate will be a function of permeability. Most oil reservoirs have multiple
layers with varying permeability values. We can see in Figure (3-7) if a layer has bigger
permeability it has better result for water flooding process.

08
 Figure 3-7- Permeability of different lyre (William M. Cobb & Associates, Inc)

3-4- injection of chemical materials

Chemical injection EOR helps to free trapped oil within the reservoir. This method introduces
long-chained molecules called polymers into the reservoir to increase the efficiency of water
flooding or to boost the effectiveness of surfactants, which are cleansers that help lower
surface tension that inhibits the flow of oil through the reservoir. Less than 1% of all EOR
methods presently utilized in the US consist of chemical injections. Polymer injection
projects are used more than other chemical methods at present time (especially in America).

There are four types of chemical EOR:

 Polymer flooding where the injection-water is made more viscous in order to push the
crude from the injection- to the producing well. This type of EOR is mostly used with
crude that have a higher viscosity. We will study more about this type.
 Surfactant flooding where a “soap” is pushed through the reservoir to get remaining
oil droplets out of the pores by reducing the surface tension of the droplets. This
creates a micro-emulsion which increases the mobility of the crude. The soap can be
the surfactant or created as petroleum soap by alkali. The chemical cocktail is
stabilized by polymer hence the name Alkali Surfactant Polymer (ASP) flooding.

09
  Surfactant Polymer (SP) flooding is where no alkali is used. This is applicable in
reservoirs with more saline formation water. Alkali and saline water produces scale
and will clog up the producing wells.
 Low Salinity flooding where a reservoir with higher salinity formation water is flooded
by fresh water. The fresh water releases the clay bound oil droplets in the reservoir.

3-4-1- Polymer injection

Polymer flooding is a tertiary recovery method by adding high-molecular-weight

Polyacrylamide into injected water, so as to increase the viscosity of fluid, improve
volumetric sweep efficiency, and thereby further increase the oil recovery factor. It should be
considered that in polymer and gel injection, injective solution should enter all layers at the
same time, but its rate depends on the permeability rate of the zones.

When oil is displaced by water, the oil/water mobility ratio is so high that the injected water
fingers through the reservoirs. By injecting polymer solution into reservoirs, the oil/water
mobility ratio can be much reduced, and the displacement front advances evenly to sweep a
larger volume. The viscoelasticity of polymer solution can help displace oil remaining in
micro pores that cannot be otherwise displaced by water flooding.

Figure 3-8- Polymer injection (Advanced CERT Canada Inc.)

21
Technical description:

Polymer flooding has been used for more than 40 years to effectively recover the remaining
oil from the reservoir, up to 30% of the original oil in place. Due to decreased water
production and enhanced oil production, the total cost of using the polymer flooding
technique is less than that of water flooding. The polymer flooding efficiency ranges from 0.7
to 1.75 lb of polymer per barrel of incremental oil production. Polymers added to water
increase its viscosity and reduce water permeability due to mechanical entrapment, thus
decreasing its mobility. The process usually starts with pumping water containing surfactants
to reduce the interfacial tension between the oil and water phases and to alter the wettability
of the reservoir rock to improve the oil recovery. Polymer is then mixed with water and
injected continuously for an extended period of time (can take several years). When about
30% to 50% of the reservoir pore volume in the project area has been injected, the addition
of polymer stops and the drive water is pumped into the injection well to drive the polymer
slug and the oil bank in front of it toward the production wells.

Criteria Suggestion Advancing projects

Oil API degree ˃25 14-43
Oil viscosity (CP) ˂150 (rather between 10-100) 1-80
Oil compound Is not criterion
Oil saturation degree ˃50 50-92
Sand rock reservoirs are preferred but it is also possible in
Reservoir rock type
carbonate reservoirs
Reservoir main
Is not criterion
diameter
˃10
Everywhere that permeability is less than 50, polymer may
Mid permeability 10-15000
cause the swept of just a part of reservoir unless the
polymer molecule weight is sufficiently low
Depth (ft) ˂9000 1300-9600
o
Temperature (F ) ˂200 80-185
Table 3-6- proper parameters to apply polymer injection projects (NIOC)

Mobility Ratio

After the second phase (water or gas injection) there is still considerable amount of oil
remaining, since it was not swept completely from the reservoir. One of the reasons for that
phenomenon, outlined by Glatz, is the unfavorable mobility ratio. Mobility ratio is defined as
the ratio of mobility (λ) of the displacing fluid (water) to the mobility of the displaced fluid (oil),
where mobility is permeability (κ) divided by viscosity (μ):

20
 Figure 3-9- Fingering effect promoted by the unfavorable mobility ratio (top), and good oil recovery
facilitated by the use of polymer flooding (bottom). (Source: G. Zerkalov)

Thus, there is an inverse relation between the volumetric sweep efficiency and the mobility
ratio. The value of M greater than unity is unfavorable, since this will cause the instability of
the displacement process and so called "viscous fingering" effect. Under the condition of a
large viscosity difference between the displacing (water, lower viscosity) and displaced (oil,
higher viscosity) fluid, the mobility ratio will become larger than one and, thus, poor recovery
will be reached. The fingering effect is highly undesirable as it promotes itself more and
more and sharply reduces the production as soon as the finger reaches the production well
site. In an endeavor to decrease the mobility ratio below one, the approach of using viscous
fluid (polymer) to increase the viscosity of displacing fluid has been developed. This helps to
promote the displacing fluid in a stable, uniform manner and decrease the chance of
fingering effect thus increasing the efficiency of oil recovery

3-5- water and gas alternative injection (WAG)

Mobile degree is not suitable between injective gas and reservoir oil in CO2 injection or other
miscible gas drives and this is for lower viscosity injective phase rather than reservoir oil that
cause reduction of sweeping efficiency. The method which is improved in order to conquest
on this problem is the injection of a specific deal of water and gas alternatively. Alternative
injection of these two fluids causes reduction in their mobility as, the compounding of these
two phases mobility be less than one of the fluids which is injected lonely. Caudle and Dyes
in 1958 posed this method for the first time. The experiences show that alternative injection
of water and gas has better efficiency.

22
 Often, CO2 floods involve the injection of volumes of CO2 alternated with volumes of water;
water alternating gas or WAG floods. This approach helps to mitigate the tendency for the
lower viscosity CO2 to finger its way ahead of the displaced oil. Once the injected CO2
breaks through to the producing well, any gas injected afterwards will follow that path,
reducing the overall efficiency of the injected fluids to sweep the oil from the reservoir rock.

Recently, WAG process has been studied and examined in some of heavy oil reservoirs. For
example it has been examined in the Kozluka field in Turkey in which reservoir rocks are
carbonate and its API is 12.6. In this project, water and CO2 injection process causes that
recovery rate increases about 9% rather than CO2 injection.

Mechanism and process:

Oil recovery increases for viscosity reduction, petroleum inflation and restriction in petroleum
steaming. If the reservoir conditions are suitable for gas injection, so the miscibility
increases. Injective water results in oil drive toward production wells and prevents from more
mobility and distribution of gas than oil. in this method, usually CO 2 and hydrocarbon gases
are used.

Figure 3-10- water and gas alternative injection (Advanced CERT Canada Inc)

23
 Parameter Suitable extent
Oil API degree ˃38
Oil viscosity (cp) ˂6

Oil compound Its major part is C2 to C7

Oil saturation degree

˃30
(%)
Main reservoir Net
Is not criterion
Thickness(m)
Porosity Is not criterion
Permeability (md) ˂2560
Depth (ft) ˂9000 (by considering the heat degree)
o
Temperature (C ) Is not criterion
Table 3-7- proper parameters to apply WAG project (NIOC)

3-6- Microbial EOR Methods

Another tertiary method of oil recovery is microbial enhanced oil recovery, commonly known
as MEOR, which nowadays is becoming an important and a rapidly developed tertiary
production technology, which uses microorganisms or their metabolites to enhance the
recovery of residual oil (Banat, 1995; Xu et al., 2009).

Microbial Enhanced Oil Recovery Mechanisms

Improvement of oil recovery through microbial actions can be performed through several
mechanisms such as reduction of oil-water interfacial tension and alteration of wettability by
surfactant production and bacterial presence, selective plugging by microorganisms and
their metabolites, oil viscosity reduction by gas production or degradation of long-chain
saturated hydrocarbons, and production of acids which improves absolute permeability by
dissolving minerals in the rock, however, the two first mechanisms are believed to have the
greatest impact on oil recovery. So that, microorganisms can produce many of the same
types of compounds that are used in conventional EOR processes to mobilize oil trapped in
reservoirs and the only difference between EOR and some of the MEOR methods probably
is the means by which the substances are introduced into the reservoir. Table 3-8
summarizes different microbial consortia, their related metabolites and applications in
MEOR.

24
Microbial product Example microbes Application in MEOR
Biomass Biomass Bacillus, Leuconostoc, Selective plugging and wettability
Xanthomonas alteration
Surfactants Acinetobacter, Arthrobacter, Emulsification and de-emulsification
Bacillus, Pseudomonas through reduction of IFT
Polymers Bacillus, Brevibacterium, Injectivity profile and viscosity
Leuconostoc, Xanthomonas modification, selective plugging
Solvents Clostridium, Zymomonas, Rock dissolution for better
Klebsiella permeability, oil viscosity reduction
Acids Clostridium, Enterobacter, Mixed Permeability increase, emulsification
acidogens
Gases Clostridium,Enterobacter Increased pressure, oil swelling, IFT
Methanobacterium and viscosity reduction
Table 3-8- Microorganism, their metabolites and applications in MEOR

Figure 3-11- microbial injection (BGR Report of the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources)

MEOR advantages

The most outstanding advantages of MEOR over other EOR technologies are listed below

1. The injected bacteria and nutrient are inexpensive and easy to obtain and handle in the
field.

25
2. MEOR processes are economically attractive for marginally producing oil fields and are
suitable alternatives before the abandonment of marginal wells.

3. Microbial cell factories need little input of energy to produce the MEOR agents.

4. Compared to other EOR technologies, less modification of the existing field characteristics
are required to implement the recovery process by MEOR technologies, which are more
cost-effective to install and more easily applied.

5. Since the injected fluids are not petrochemicals, their costs are not dependent on the
global crude oil price.

6. MEOR processes are particularly suited for carbonate oil reservoirs where some EOR
technologies cannot be applied efficiently.

7. The effects of bacterial activity within the reservoir are improved by their growth with time,
while in EOR technologies the effects of the additives tend to decrease with time and
distance from the injection well.

8. MEOR products are all biodegradable and will not be accumulated in the environment,
therefore are environmentally compatible.

9. As the substances used in chemical EOR methods are petrochemicals obtained from
petroleum feedstock after downstream processing, MEOR methods in comparison with
conventional chemical EOR methods, in which finished commercial products are utilized for
the recovery of raw materials, are more economically attractive.

MEOR disadvantages

1. The oxygen deployed in aerobic MEOR can act as corrosive agent on non-resistant
topside equipment and down-hole piping

2. Anaerobic MEOR requires large amounts of sugar limiting its applicability in offshore
platforms due to logistical problems

3. Exogenous microbes require facilities for their cultivation.

4. Indigenous microbes need a standardized framework for evaluating microbial activity, e.g.
specialized coring and sampling techniques.

5. Microbial growth is favored when: layer permeability is greater than 50 md; reservoir
temperature is inferior to 80 0C, salinity is below 150 g/L and reservoir depth is less than
2400m.

26
 Parameter Suitable extent
Salinity rate (Nacl) (%) ˂15
o
Temperature (f ) ˂180

Depth (ft) ˂1800

Tracer elements (Hg, Ni, Se,

˂10-15
As)(ppm)
Permeability (md) ˃50
Oil API degree ˃15
Oil saturation (%) ˃15
Table 3-9- Proper parameters to apply microbial project (NIOC)

3-7- Recovery in fractured reservoirs

In relation with oil recovery, these reservoirs are affected by reservoir natural characteristics
and fluid characteristics and also proper management strategy selection for field
improvement in relation with optimizing and how to produce and selection of the best method
for enhanced oil recovery.

Fractured reservoirs are divided to four classes:

1- Fractured reservoir with very low porosity and permeability of matrix, that in these
reservoirs, the fractures create the capacity of saving and fluid flow.
2- Fractured reservoir with slightly low porosity and permeability of matrix that in these
reservoirs, the matrix creates the capacity of fluid saving and fractures are the
reservoir fluid flow path.
3- Fractured reservoir with good porosity and low permeability matrix that in this status,
like the second kind of matrix, the matrix creates of capacity of fluid saving and
fractures are the reservoir fluid flow path.
4- Fractured reservoir with high porosity and permeability matrix that in this status, the
matrix creates saving capacity and fluid flow and the fractures are effective in
permeability improvement.

Fractured reservoirs as lower recovery factor than other reservoirs. These oil reservoirs have
average about 26% recovery factor. In figure 3- 12 final recovery rate of 64 reservoirs is
shown. 8 gas reservoirs have mean recovery of 61%, and low recovery of two gas reservoirs
is because of water entrance to swept fractures.

By attending to this point that, most of world fractured reservoirs are from 2nd and 3rd type,
the performed researches are more in relation with these two types, it should be mentioned
that most of the fractured reservoirs of Iran are from the 2nd type.

27
3-7-1- Fractured reservoirs of 2nd type

The reservoir rocks of fractured reservoirs type 2 are brittle, such as Dolomite, hard lime,
hard sand rock. In these reservoirs, recovery factor more depends on the condition of
fractures network rather than factors such as reservoir fluid and matrix characteristics and
the reason is that by considering widespread fractures of the reservoir rock, these reservoirs
generally are in relation with underground water layers.

20
18
16
14
Frequency

12
10
8
Gas
6
4 Oil
2
0

Ultimate Recovery Factor, %

Figure 3-12- final recovery rate in studied fractured reservoirs (NIOC)

In this study, it was specified that recovery factor in this kind of reservoir generally depends
on water drive rate from water layer. These reservoirs are too damageable in irregular
production rate and if they be managed correctly, some of them will have a good recovery
factor even without using secondary enhanced oil recovery and EOR. Oil recovery rate in
these reservoirs which are in relation with an active water layer is more than reservoirs
which have drive mechanism with weak water layer and other mechanisms and use
secondary recovery methods and EOR.

For example we can point to Yanling field in China and Casablanca field in Spain. In Yanling
field production was done in the first two years with a great Rate and this result in preventing
more entrance of matrix oil into the fractures for sever pressure reduction and even a water
injection project failed because of incursion problem and the final recovery rate became less
than 20%.

28
 Secondary Recovery /EOR Water Injection, Gas Injection and Hydraulic… 25%

Gas Injection 23%

Technique

Water Injection 23%

None(Unassisted Primary Recovery) 37%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Avg. Ultimate Recovery Factor

Figure 3-13- final recovery rate in fractured reservoirs type 2 after using enhanced oil recovery methods
(NIOC)

But in Casablanca field which was similar to Yanling field, the production rate was controlled
extremely and when the water cut rate reached an especial measure (2%), the production
rate reduced. this simple control which was a combination of care on the production rate and
water cut rate, resulted in increase of producing from this reservoir to more than 45%.

Field Country Basin HC Type Reservoir Drive Secondary/EOR Ultimate

Lithology Mechanism Technique Recovery
Factor
(%)
Altamont Usa Uinta Light oil Sand rock Solution Gas Microbial Injection -
Amposta Spain Gulf of Heavy oil Lime rock Strong Bottom Unassisted 56 %
Marino Valencia Water Primary Recovery
Bibi Iran Zagros Medium Lime rock Water/Gas cap Gas Injection 15 %
Hakimeh oil Dolomite expansion
Casablanca Spain Gulf of Light oil Lime rock Strong Bottom Unassisted 47.5 %
Valencia dolomite Water Primary Recovery
Dineh-Bi- USA Colorado Light oil Volcanic Solution Gas None -
Keyah Plateau
Gachsaran Iran Zagros Light oil Lime rock Water/Solution Gas Injection 26.6 %
Dolomite Gas
Gela Italy Cakanisetta Heavy oil dolomite Strong Bottom Unassisted 11 %
Water Primary Recovery
Haft Kel Iran Zagros Light oil Lime rock Water/Solution Gas Injection 27 %
Dolomite Gas
La Paz Venezuela Maracaibo Light oil Lime rock Solution Gas Water injection -
Lama Venezuela Maracaibo Light oil Lime rock Water/Gas cap No data 23.5 %
expansion
Liubei China Bohai Light oil dolomite Water Water Injection 20 %
Maozhou China Bohai Light oil dolomite Water Water Injection 27.5 %
Maxi China Bohai Light oil Sandrock Water/Solution Water 40 %
Gas Injection/Hydraulic
Fracturing
Nido Philippines Northwest Medium Lime rock Strong Bottom Unassisted 35 %
Palawan Oil Lime water Primary Recovery
rock
Pars Iran Zagros Light oil Lime rock Water/Gas cap Gas Injection 24 %
Dolomite Expansion

29
 Ragusa Italy Iblean Heavy Oil Dolomite Water No data 30 %
Plateau
Samgori Georgia Kura Light oil Volcanics Water No data -
Tirrawarra Australia Cooper Light oil Sand rock Solution Gas Gas 25 %
Injection/Hydraulic
fracturing
Vega Italy Ragusaa Heavy oil Lime rock Water No data 15 %
dolomite
Yanling Chaina Bohai Medium Dolomite Water Water 18.5 %
oil Injection/Gas (N2)
injection
Yihbezhuang China Bohai Light oil Lime Weak Water Water Injection 22.5 %
stone
dolomite

Table 3-10- A number of reservoir type 2 in the world (NIOC)

3-7-2- Fractured reservoirs type 3

The rock of fractured reservoir type 3 is almost such a chalk and silica shills. Unlike type 2
the characteristics of reservoir fluid and rock have a significant role in specifying the final
recovery. These reservoirs are more in relation with gas drive, gravity drainage drive, and
other compound drives mechanisms. Here, the use of secondary methods and EOR in order
to optimizing the recovery degree of the reservoir is necessary. The recovery factor depends
on the characteristics such as wettability, matrix, API degree and mobility degree.

Field Country Basin HC Type Reservoir Lithology Drive Secondary/EOR Ultimate

Mechanism Technique Recovery
Factor
(%)
Dan Denmark North sea Light oil Primary Chalk Solution Horizontal 11 %
Central Graben Gas/ Gas Drilling/Hydraulic
cap fracturing
Expansion
Eldfisk Norway North sea Light oil Primary Chalk Solution Water 35 %
Central Graben Gas Injection/Gas
Injection
Eldfisk Norway North sea Light oil Primary Chalk Solution Hydraulic 23.5 %
Central Graben Gas fracturing
Fahud Oman Oman Light oil Chalky lime rock Gravity Water 18 %
Foredeep drainage Injection/Gas
Injection
Gidding USA Gulf of Mexico Medium Primary Chalk Solution Horizontal -
&light Gas Drilling/Hydraulic
oil fracturing
Idd El Qatar Persian Gulf Medium Chalky lime rock Gravity Horizontal -
Shargi oil drainage Drilling
Libsurne USA North inclined Medium Lime rock/dolomite Solution Horizontal 7.6 %
oil Gas/ Gas Drilling/Hydraulic
cap fracturing
Expansion

31
Lost Hills USA San Joaquin Heavy & Chert/ Dolomite Solution Hydraulic 17 %
Medium Gas fracturing/Water
oil Injection
Midale Canada Williston Light oil Dolomite Solution Horizontal 31 %
Gas Drilling/Water
Injection
Natih Oman Oman Light oil Chalky Lime rock Gravity Water 22 %
Foredeep drainage Injection/Gas
Injection
Norman Canada Western Light oil Chalky lime rock Solution Horizontal 37 %
Wells CanadaPearsall Gas Drilling/Water
Injection
Pearsall USA Gulf of Mexico Medium Primary Chalk Solution Horizontal 12 %
oil Gas Drilling/Hydraulic
fracturing
Salym Russia Western Light oil Chert/Shale Solution Hydraulic -
Siberia Gas fracturing/Water
Injection
Skjold Denmark North sea Light oil Primary Chalk Solution Water Injection 30 %
Central Garben Gas/water
South USA San Joaquin Heavy & Chert/ Dolomite Solution Hydraulic 15 %
Belridge light oil Gas fracturing/Water
Injection
Valhall Norway North sea Light oil Primary Chalk Solution Horizontal 29 %
Central Garben Gas Drilling/Hydraulic
fracturing/water
Weyburninjection
Weyburn Canada Williston Light oil Dolomite Solution Horizontal 30 %
Gas/water Drilling/water
injection
Yibal-A Oman South Oman Light oil Primary Chalk Water Injection 44 %

Table 3-11- number of reservoirs type 3 in the world (NIOC)

Water Injection, Gas Injection and Hydraulic

Secondary Recovery /EOR

25%
Fracturing in Various Combination
Technique

Gas Injection 23%

Water Injection 23%

None(Unassisted Primary Recovery) 37%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Avg. Ultimate Recovery Factor

Figure 3-14- final recovery rate in fractured reservoir type 3 after using enhanced oil recovery methods
(NIOC)

30
 Chapter four
Heavy oil reservoir recovery methods

4-1- Heavy oil definition

Heavy oil and bitumen are defined as crude oil with high viscosity and low API degree. In
general, crude oil with a viscosity (μ) ≥ 1 kg/m.s or oAPI ≤ 20 is classified as heavy oil, and
crude oil with μ ≥10 kg/m.s and oAPI ≤10 is classified as bitumen. As the world’s reserves
for sweet crude oil decline rapidly and demands for petroleum resources continue to
increase, the role of heavy oil and bitumen is crucial to the future of the world’s petroleum
supply.

3 o o
Oil type Viscosity (cp) Density (kg/m )(15.6 c) API degree 15.6 c)
Heavy 100-1000 394-1000 10-20
Ultra heavy/Bitumen ˃10000 ˃1000 ˂10
Table 4-1- heavy oil definition (International Energy Agency)

4-2- heavy oil in the world

The world’s proven reserves for non-conventional oil are approximately 8 trillion barrels,
approximately 3 times larger than the world’s reserves of conventional oil (Dusseault, 2006).
As techniques in heavy oil recovery improve over time, the world’s proven reserves for non
conventional oil are expected to increase as well. Out of the total 8 trillion barrels of non USA
500 billion bbl Russia 600 billion bbl Middle East 530 billion bbl Venezuela 2 trillion bbl
Canada 3 trillion bbl 2 conventional oil reserves, Canada and Venezuela possess 3 trillion
and 2 trillion barrels respectively. Even though Canada has most of the heavy oil reserves in
the world, the high in-situ viscosity and the low API makes their recovery a challenge.

The rate of in-situ oil The rate of in-situ oil

Country 9
Country 9
(10 bbl) (10 bbl)
Canada 1860 Syria 14
Venezuela 1200 China 10
Russia and prior
1200 Ecuador 7
Soviet republics
America 55 Trinidad & tobacco 5
Iran 50
Colombia 3
Iraq 34
Table 4-2- Known resources of heavy oils in the world (NIOC)

4-3- heavy oil in Iran

32
The first discovery of HO in Iran goes back to early 1931 when wells drilled for gas reservoir
evaluation purposes in the southwest of Iran encountered a large Heavy oil occurrence.
Systematic Heavy oil exploration in Iran started in 1982; in 1994 the Petroleum Engineering
and Development Company (PEDEC) was established within the National Iranian Oil
Company (NIOC) to manage national Heavy oil and Xtra heavy oil assets. According to the
latest studies, Iran has over 50×10^9 bbl of heavy oil, mostly occurring in naturally fractured
carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite) and comprising >40% of Iran's proven oil
reserves. Significant Heavy oil discoveries in the south and southwest of Iran, combined with
high oil prices and difficulties in sustaining conventional oil production rates, have led to a
greater interest in their development since 2000. But now Projects are stopped due to low oil
price.

Field
Row Field name Structure dimensions Rock type API
(km*km)

Jahrom 16*90 Dolomite 8-10

1 Mund Mountain
Sarvak Lime 12-14

Lime and
2 Zaghe Pabdeh 15*4 15
polmeh rock

Fahalyan Lime 16

3 Ferdous Godone 20*13 lime 16

Daryan Lime 16

Dolomite and
4 Paydar Asemary 28*8 17-18
sand lime

Asemary and
5 West Paydar Lime and sand 17
Sarvak

Dolomite, lime
Asemary 25*6 14-19
6 Sousangerd and sand

Sarvak Lime Not specified

Pabedeh-
7 Ramshir 35*5 Lime – marl 15.1
Goorpey
8 Soroush Kazhdomi Sand rock 14-19
Sarvak Dolomite 10
9 Northern Pars
Khami Lime 10
Table 4-3- Known resources of heavy oils (NIOC)

Main reservoirs of heavy oil of Iran are located in the fields such as Kuh-e-Mund, Zagheh,
Paydar, Western Paydar, Sousangerd, Ramshir and Ferdous (in Persian Gulf). Reservoir
rocks of these sources are formed from Dolomite and carbonate.

33
 Field API
Row Field name Structure dimensions Rock type heaviness
(km*km) degree

Asemary 27*4 Lime 28

1 Shadegan
Sarvak 17.7-22

Pabdeh Lime

2 Cheshmeh Khosh 28.5*4.5 17.8

Goorpey Marl

Pabedeh Lime
16-20
3 Shakhe Goorpay 16*5.5 Marl
Sarvak Lime 13-24

Jahrom Dolomite lime

4 Boushehr Daryan 28*8 lime

Godone Dolomite lime

5 Mansouri Bottom Sarvak 40*5 Lime Not specified

6 Ahwaz Bottom Sarvak 68*6 Lime 10-14

Daryan
7 Zireh Godone 40*16 Lime
Fahalyan
8 Khoramshahr Kazhdomi Shil and sand

Jahrom Dolomite lime

9 Golshan 26*9
Sarvak
Lime

Table 4-4- Observed resources of heavy oil in South-West zones of Iran (NIOC)

4-4- Recovery of Heavy Oil

The world’s reserves of non-conventional oil are approximately 3 times that of conventional
oil, but only 13% of the world’s crude oil production is non-conventional oil. The high capital
investment and high operation cost in heavy oil recovery are the reasons. In Canada, in
order to sustain an economical heavy oil production operation, the price of crude oil must
remain well above $25 per barrel (Dusseault, 2006).

34
4-4-1- Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS)

CHOPS is a technique applied to both tertiary recovery of conventional oil as well as to

“quasi primary” production of oil sands and oil shale. CHOPS is really nothing more than the
idea that if sand filters are removed from pumping equipment and sand is produced with oil,
then the two can be separated above ground. The technique has the advantage that
removing sand from the well can also result in enough space being created for oil to form
small liquid pockets that are easily produced. The system is called “cold” because not heat is
injected to help liquefy the petroleum, thereby saving on energy investment and improving
ERO.

The CHOPS method allows sand into the wellbore with the oil to improve well productivity.
Wells that formerly produced only 20 barrels/day have been observed to produce more than
200 barrels/day, according to Canada's Centre for Energy, with free movement of sand into
the wellbore. This technology was pioneered in Canada.

CHOPS only recovers 5 -6% of the oil in a given reservoir, but it is cheap to implement.
Disposal of the sand, which is contaminated with petroleum, is a serious drawback to this
method. Some locations use oily sand in road construction, but this poses problems as well.
Currently, most sand is disposed of in underground salt caverns.

35
 Parameter Desirable extent
Depth (ft) 1300-2500
Oil saturation degree (%) 67-87
Porosity (%) 30-34
Net Thickness(ft) 13-80
Permeability (md) 500-10000
Oil API degree 11-14
Reservoir pressure (psi) 400-848
o
Reservoir temperature (f ) 61-70
Viscosity (CP) 160-600
Relation of gas to oil (GOR) 0-56
Table 4-5- proper parameter to apply cold production project (NIOC)

Limitations

As production process steadily continues the salt layered well also need to grow in order to
have space for sand accumulation. At the same time it always has to facilitate the separation
process but the structural integrity has to be maintained.
It has been found that the initial investment can be a little high for the super sump process
but once established, the running cost is not that high.

4-4-2-Surface mining

Because of the existence of great sources of tar sand in the world, surface mining is on the
list of EOR methods with the goal of criteria screening. This method is used just when no
other method can be used and of course this is for its higher cost than thermal methods, so
the saturation degree of natural tar in tar sand should be very high and the reservoir depth
should be very low. However, some efforts are doing for oil production from this reservoir
through methods such as SAGD.

Parameter Desirable extent

Oil API degree 7-11
Viscosity (CP) Zero cold flow (less possible of mobility)
Oil compounding It is not criterion
Oil saturation degree (PV %) ˃8
Reservoir stone type Have the ability of mining
Net diameter (ft) ˃10
Permeability (md) It is not criterion
Depth (ft) The rate of overburden/san should be larger than 3
o
Temperature (f ) It is not criterion
Table 4-6- proper parameter to apply mining and production project

36
4-4-3-Thermal methods

During the thermal recovery the reservoir is heated to reduce oil viscosity. Thermal EOR is
the most popular method accounting for more than 50% of the overall EOR market. Steam
injection is the most common method used in thermal EOR. Other methods include in-situ
combustion, where the reservoir is heated and an injected high-oxygen gas mixture burns to
create a combustion front. Steam injection is mostly used in shallow reservoirs that contain
high viscosity (usually heavy) crude oil. These include reservoirs in the San Joaquin Valley
of California or those that comprise the oil sands of Alberta, Canada. Steam injection is a
very well understood EOR method, used commercially since the 1960s. The injection of
steam lets heat the crude oil in the formation thus lowering its viscosity and vaporizing some
of the oil to increase its mobility. The decreased viscosity helps reduce the surface tension,
increase the permeability of oil and improve the reservoir seepage conditions. Oil
vaporization allows oil to flow more freely through the reservoir and to form better oil once it
has condensed.

4-4-4- In-situ combustion

In-situ combustion (ISC) is an enhanced oil recovery method in which the air is injected into
the reservoir burning the heaviest crude oil components generating heat and combustion
gases that enhance recovery by reducing oil viscosity and pressurizing the system,
respectively. In this process, highly exothermic reactions occur in the porous medium
resulting in significant increases in the temperature. For heavy oils, a 300-400 °C increase in
temperature is not uncommon. Large temperature differences signify heat transfer and also
will result in the phase change. ISC involves many phenomena, making modeling complex.
So the engineering of the process is more difficult than any other method of crude oil
recovery, but the advantages of in-situ combustion motivate researchers to investigate on it.

Figure 4-1- Thermal in situ combustion (Oliveros 2013)

37
Technical description

In this method the air is injected to the crude oil reservoir. After ignition the generated heat
by combustion keeps the combustion front moving toward the producer well. Combustion
front burns all the fuel in its way. Usually 5 to 10 percent of the crude oil is used as a fuel
and the rest is going to be produced in the production well. The heat of reaction vaporizes
initial water and also the light components of the oil in front of the combustion front. The
steam is condensed while distancing from the hot region.

Restrictions and problems:

Several aspects of operating in-situ combustion projects must be considered:

1. The large compression ratio and associated costs required to inject air into the
formation
2. The planning and design requirements for a combustion project, which are more
difficult than for steam injection
3. Extensive laboratory work to assess fuel availability, air requirements, and burning
characteristics of the crude that are required before designing in-situ
combustion projects
4. The high degree of technical sophistication and the careful monitoring needed to
ensure proper operation of a project
5. The limitation of numerical simulation and other techniques that makes predictions of
recovery more difficult than most other enhanced oil recovery methods

Parameter Desirable extent Parameter confine in running projects

Oil API degree 10-27 10-40

Viscosity (CP) ˂5000 6-5000

A deal of asphalting is needed

Oil compound
for coke sediment

Oil saturation degree (pv%) ˃50 62-94

Sand or sand rock with high

Reservoir type
porosity

Net Thickness(ft) ˃10

Average permeability degree

˃50 85-4000
(md)

Depth (ft) ˂11500 400-11300

o
Temperature (f ) ˃100 22-100

Table 4-7- proper parameters to apply thermal combustion parameters (NIOC)

38
4-4-5- steam injection

During the thermal recovery the reservoir is heated to reduce oil viscosity. Thermal EOR is
the most popular method accounting for more than 50% of the overall EOR market. Steam
injection is the most common method used in thermal EOR. Other methods include in-situ
combustion, where the reservoir is heated and an injected high-oxygen gas mixture burns to
create a combustion front. Steam injection is mostly used in shallow reservoirs that contain
high viscosity (usually heavy) crude oil. Steam injection is a very well understood EOR
method, used commercially since the 1960s. The injection of steam lets heat the crude oil in
the formation thus lowering its viscosity and vaporizing some of the oil to increase its
mobility. The decreased viscosity helps reduce the surface tension, increase the
permeability of oil and improve the reservoir seepage conditions. Oil vaporization allows oil
to flow more freely through the reservoir and to form better oil once it has condensed. Steam
injection is the most common method used in thermal EOR. It helps produce up to 30% of
original oil in place. Steam injection does not pose as many environmental risks as other
EOR methods might have. This helps implement this technology in different countries, even
with strict regulations. Economy is the main factor that determines if this technology should
be implemented in one field or the other.

Figure 4-2- Steam injection (NIOC)

39
 Parameter Desirable extent Parameter confine in running projects

Oil API degree 8-25 8-27

Viscosity (CP) ˂100000 100-5000

Not critical but some light

Oil compound
ends for steam distillation will
help
Oil saturation degree (pv %) ˃40 35-90

Sand or sand rock with high

Reservoir rock type porosity and permeability is
preferred but it is possible in
carbonate reservoirs
Net Thickness(ft) ˃20

Permeability degree (md) ˃200 200-10000

Transmissibility md-ft/cp ˃100

Depth (ft) ˂5000 300-5000

o
Temperature (f ) It is not criterion 60-280

Table 4-8- proper parameters to apply steam injection project (NIOC)

Steam injection methods:

The most important methods which are used in steam injection are:

 Cyclic Steam Simulation/Injection (CSS)

 Water flooding by steam
 Hot water injection
 Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD)
 Water Alternative Steam Process (WASP)

4-4-6- Cyclic Steam Simulation/Injection, Steam Soaked, Huff and Puff:

In cyclic steam stimulation the same well is used for steam injection and oil production. At
first, steam is injected for a period from couple of weeks to a couple of months. The
introduced steam allows heat up the oil immediately surrounding the injection well through
convective heating thus lowering its viscosity (Fig4-3-left).

After the target viscosity is reached, steam injection stops to allow heat to redistribute evenly
in the formation. This helps maximize the amount of oil recovered after this stage. The well
can then be produced until the temperature in the well drops and the viscosity of oil
increases again (Fig. 4-3-right). This cycle is repeated until the response becomes
insignificant and economical limits are reached. Obviously, most of the oil is produced in the
first few cycles.

41
 Figure 4-3- Cyclic steam stimulation. Left: Steam injection. Right: Production. (G. Zerkalov)

Parameter Desirable extent Parameter confine in running projects

Oil API degree 10-27 8-27

Viscosity (CP) ˂50000 500-1000

Oil compound Some asphaltic components

to aid coke deposition
Oil saturation degree (pv %) ˃60 55-90

Sand or Sandstone with high

Reservoir rock type
porosity but it is possible in
carbonate reservoirs

Net Thickness(ft) ˃10

Permeability degree (md) ˃100 63-10000

Transmissibility md-ft/cp ˃20

Depth (ft) ˃500 1000-4500

o
Temperature (f ) ˃150 60-280

Table 4-9- proper parameters to apply cycle system simulation project (NIOC)

Limitations:

The major limitation of cyclic steam injection is that it leaves considerable amounts of oil in
the reservoir that can only be recovered by drive processes and it is observed that less than
30% (usually less than 20%) of the initial oil in place can be recovered. One more limitation
of this process is that it is preferred production on heavy oil reservoirs that can contain high-
pressure steam without fracturing the overburden.

40
4-4-7- Water flooding by steam:

This method can be used in normal and fractured reservoirs. Steam water flooding is a
process such as water flooding in which steam injection is formed continuously. In this
method, oil is swept by steam and send toward the production well. Usually for steam
injection methods in the reservoir, first of all, Cyclic Steam Injection is done and then when it
is uneconomical steam water flooding will be used.

4-4-8- Hot water injection:

In this method sand is produced aggressively along with the heavy oil without applying heat.
The oil production is improved substantially through the regions of increased permeability
wormholes. The basis of this process is the oil production and recovery when sand
production occurs naturally. The production of the unconsolidated un-cemented reservoir
sand results in significantly higher oil production. In order to make it cost effective, the choice
of fluid can be made according to the availability of fluid and its production response of the
crude oil. For example, seawater may be injected in the undersea reservoir, which can save
the cost of delivery of water to the reservoir. Also the mineralogy of the reservoir should be
considered; for example, steam or hot water should not be injected without first considering
their effects on the reservoirs containing swelling clays.

Using new technologies in heavy oil recovery

4-4-9- SAGD process:

This method involves drilling of two parallel horizontal wells (shown in figure-4-4), one above
the other, along the reservoir itself. Hot steam is introduced from the top well which reduces
the viscosity of the heavy oil (like all other thermal methods). The reduction in viscosity of the
heavy oil separates it from the sand and it is drained into the lower well by means of gravity.
The key to this method is the two parallel and horizontal wells, and this has only become
possible due to the directional drilling technology.

The heat of the steam reduces the viscosity of the heavy oil and separates it from the sand.
It is drained into the lower well by means of gravity. Even though the injection and the
production wells can be close (5-7m), the mechanism causes the steam saturated zone,
known as the steam chamber, to rise on the top of the reservoir, expand gradually sideways,
and eventually allow the drainage. The distance between the pair of horizontal wells
vertically separated by each other is 15-20 feet. These wells are drilled at the bottom of a

42
thick unconsolidated sand stone reservoir. The injected steam reduces the oil viscosity to
values as low as 1 -10 cp, depending upon the temperatures and the initial conditions and
develops a steam chamber that grows vertically and laterally. The steam and gases rise, the
lower well receives oil and condensates due to the density difference. The products are
methane, carbon dioxide, and some traces of hydrogen sulfide. The non condensable gases
act as a partial insulation blanket by filling up the void space, which helps to reduce the
vertical heat losses. Injection pressures are much lower than the fracture gradient, which
reduces the chances of breaking into thief zone.

The SAGD process, like all gravity driven processes, is extremely stable because the
process zone progresses by means of gravity segregation, and there are no pressure driven
instabilities such as conning, fracturing, or channeling. It is vital to maintain a volume
balance; it means that each unit volume injected is replaced by each unit volume withdrawn
or reduced. If bottom water influx develops, this indicates that the pressure in the water is
higher than the pressure in the steam chamber, so this pressure should be balanced. It is
obvious that the pressure in the water zone cannot be reduced, so the pressure in the steam
chamber and production well must be increased. This increase in pressure is achieved by
increasing the operating pressure of the steam chamber through the injection rate of steam
or by reducing the production rate from the lower well.

Figure 4-4- A perspective of SAGD project by using two horizontal wells

(SPECIAL REPORT: EOR/HEAVY OIL SURVEY: 2010 WORLDWIDE EOR SURVEY)

43
 Figure 4-5- Mechanism in SAGD process

(SPECIAL REPORT: EOR/HEAVY OIL SURVEY: 2010 WORLDWIDE EOR SURVEY)

Parameter Desirable extent

Net Thickness(ft) The main Net Thicknesses more than 35 foot
Depth (ft) ˂4500
Pressure (psi) 150
Permeability (md) ˃1000
Vertical permeability (md) ˃100
Oil viscosity (cp) ˃2000
Transmissibility m.md/cp ˃5
Porosity (5) ˃20
Other positive characteristics no gas cap and swelling clays
Table 4-10- proper parameters to apply SAGD project (NIOC)

Environmental Impact
The process of SAGD is non-cyclic, meaning that steam has to be constantly produced by
the consumption of natural gas and injected into the system. This is costly in economic and
environmental terms. This is the most dominant adverse consequence of SAGD. SAGD also
negatively affects the environment in its large consumption of water. A large amount of fresh
water is needed for steam generation, and then the resulting effluent water of the process
must be treated and deposited. However, water recycling can be done to minimize this
impact, and is in many cases. As well, some formation damage can occur due to clay
swelling.

44
4-4-10- VAPEX process

The VAPEX method of recovery in conventional, non-fractured heavy oil,

sandstone reservoirs (like those in the Canadian) is a method that oil and gas companies use
to recover resources with a high viscosity. This method is very similar to the SAGD method
but uses hydrocarbon solvents to dilute the bitumen or heavy oil to allow for a more
environmentally efficient and cost effective recovery process.

Like the SAGD method, two horizontal wells need to be drilled in order for the VAPEX
recovery process to commence. One well is drilled down to the bottom of
the formation (production well), while the other well is drilled about 5 meters above the first
well (injection well). The hydrocarbon solvent is injected into the injection well. The solvent
dilutes the heavy oil and bitumen which begins to flow down to the bottom of the formation.
The production well is then used to extract the resources from the reservoir. Figure 4-6
shows the simplified process, emphasizing on the need for horizontal wells and illustrating
that you can use more than one injection well to improve the results.

Figure 4-6- A perspective of VAPEX mechanism (Germain sub-surface plan)

45
 An important step in this process is the recycling of the hydrocarbon solvent. After injecting
the reservoir with the solvent, a vapor chamber is formed between the two wells. The solvent
evaporates from the diluted oil and rises against the flow of water and oil through the porous
reservoir, which simultaneously heats the passing water. The vapor moves to the top far
reaches of the chamber where it is dissolved in cold, undiluted oil and the process can begin
again. The recycling of the solvent extends the solvent-oil interface created by the chamber
in the lateral direction. This allows for more and more oil to be extracted (until gravity
stabilizes the boundary) as the solvent continues to dissolve, evaporate, condense and
dissolve again.
This process also calls for hot water to be injected with the solvent. This was not mentioned
before because the energy required (and hence cost) to heat up the water is vastly small in
comparison with the energy costs for heating steam to be injected. The hot water has two
major purposes in the process:

1. To help decrease the viscosity of the reservoir oil.

2. To increase the reservoir temperature so that the solvent can evaporate and hence be
recycled.

Parameter Desirable extent

Net Thickness(ft) ˃35

˂1(less than 20 meters also may be

Gas cap Net Thickness(m)
Commodus economically

Permeability (d) ˃1

The rate of mobile oil (bbl/acre-ft) ˃500

Table 4-11- Proper parameters to apply VAPEX project (NIOC)

Environmental Advantages
The VAPEX process is more environmentally friendly compared to other in situ methods.
Since VAPEX process is a non-thermal production method with a lower energy requirement;
the following result as major environmental advantages:

 Approximately 93% less natural gas is required in VAPEX compared to other steam
processes. Steam is only used to recover the VAPEX gas for solvent recycling.
 Also, almost 93% less fresh water is used in VAPEX compared to other steam processes.

46
 With VAPEX, partial upgrading of the oil occurs in situ; this makes the process more
environmentally viable due to:

 Reduction in hydrogen usage

 Reduction in emissions and hence, less greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere

Economical Advantages
Not only does VAPEX provide greener alternatives, but it also can be more economically
practical. The costs for running the VAPEX process are appealing since:

 Facilities used are simple

 Energy costs required for operation are low
 No spending required for steam generation, oil-water separators, and water conditioning
 The VAPEX solvent stands for a small slice of the costs (the majority of it is recycled for
reuse)

Comparison with SAGD

Table 4-12 below represents the environmental and economic advantages when using the
VAPEX process compared to the SAGD method for heavy oil extraction. The numbers
shown are on a basis of 4,000 cubic meters oil production per day.

Process Natural Gas (m^3/day) Fresh Water (m^3/day)

SAGD 1,150,000 85,000

VAPEX 1,700 110

Table 4-12- Natural Gas and Fresh Water Consumption in VAPEX and SAGD (NIOC)

The similar characteristics of SAGD and VAPEX:

1- Both of them are used to produce oil with high viscosity.

2- The main drive in both mechanisms is the gravity drainage drive.
3- Use of horizontal well is suggested in both methods.

47
 Chapter five

The process of oil recovery from Mund field

5-1- Geological setting of Kuh-e-Mund oil field

Kuh-e-Mond is the largest on shore heavy oil (HO) field in Iran, found in a giant anticline with
a NW-SE trend, parallel to the Zagros orogenic belt. Kuh-e- Mond was discovered in 1931
and systematic exploration began in 1984. This relatively symmetrical anticline is 90 km long
and 16 km wide with an estimated minimum HO resource base of 6 Bb OOIP, found in three
separate reservoirs with depths ranging from 400‒1200 meters and oil viscosities of 570–
1160 cSt in situ. A large number of faults cut the axial plane of the structure causing some
strata displacements around the central and plunging parts of the structure. The average dip
of the southwest and northeast flanks of the anticline is 17° and 15°, respectively.

Figure 5-1- A perspective of Kuh-e-Mund field earth zone (Google earth)

The Asmari Formation is considered to be a single reservoir. The Jahrum Formation of

Eocene age mainly consists of highly fractured light brown medium-grained crystalline
dolomite (Type I/III) with intercrystalline vuggy and fracture porosity. The lower Jahrum is
mainly white detrital dolomite and partly anhydritic and cherty limestone (Type I/III). This
reservoir has a maximum gross thickness of 450 m. Original minimum OOIP has been
estimated at about 3.6×10^9 bbl.
The Cenomanian Sarvak Formation is mainly composed of highly fractured marly neritic and
pelagic limestone with interbedded shale layers. This formation is divided into three main

48
units, the upper, middle and lower Sarvak. The upper unit is clean limestone with some
slightly argillaceous zones and comprises the Sarvak HO reservoir with a gross thickness of
100 meters. In the middle Sarvak, shale and marls dominate, and the lower Sarvak is mainly
marly limestone with some shale bed intercalations. Heavy mud losses in drilling indicated a
highly-fractured formation. The Sarvak HO reservoir contains an estimated OOIP of
3.6×10^9 bbl.

Sarvak

Sarvak

Figure 5-2- Lithostratigraphic column of the reservoirs at the Kuhe-e-Mond HO field (Modified from
Morgenstern, N.R. 1962)

49
 Figure 5-3- Geological cross-section of the Kuh-e-Mond anticline (NIOC)

5-2- Reservoir and Fluid Properties of the Kuh-e Mond

A representative screening parameter database is vital in production technology screening

and recoverable reserves evaluation of a family of HO reservoirs to decide which are the
best reservoirs deserving of most attention. As the first part of a production technology
selection program, lithostratigraphic information and fluid properties for the HO reservoirs at
the Kuh-e Mond HO field in SW Iran were collected, reviewed and are summarized in Table
5-1 This database was constructed using drilling and geophysical log data, as well as field
and laboratory tests conducted in the reservoir (i.e. well tests) or on samples taken from
exploration wells. Average reservoir and fluid properties for each selected reservoir was
estimated from the available data. This database will serve as input for a production
technology screening program.

The number of drilled wells 7

The volume of oil and gases in situ 4 billion barrels
The reservoir present pressure (psi) 1400
The type of reservoir rock Fractures carbonate
porosity % 19%
Oil API degree 13-15
Oil Sulfur range 5% of weight
Oil saturation (%) 78
Temperature (F) 140
Table 5-1- A summary of Kuh-e-Mund field (NIOC)

51
5-3- STOIIP

In table 5-13 you can see the report of volume calculated of the Sarvak reservoir. We can
see that the OIIP in Sarvak reservoir is 547 [×10ˆ6 m3]. The most volume of oil is located in
first zone of Sarvak (Sarvak top) which has 20 m thickness.

= bulk volume of the reservoir rock, bbl

= net/gross ratio of formation thickness, fraction
=porosity, fraction
= water saturation, fraction

= oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB

A = area of the reservoir, ft

= stock-tank oil initially in place, STB h = thickness of the reservoir, ft

Bulk volume Net volume Pore volume HCPV oil STOIIP

Case
[×10ˆ6 m3] [×10ˆ6 m3] [×10ˆ6 rm3] [×10ˆ6 rm3] [×10ˆ6 sm3]

Sarvak Case 12276 9036 1049 601 547

Zones

Sub Sarvak top 2296 2099 321 210 191

Sub Sarvak 1 999 30 4 2 2

Sub Sarvak 2 2222 1909 180 97 88

Sub Sarvak 3 2411 2015 308 184 167

Sub Sarvak 4 1718 1359 111 52 48

Sub Sarvak 5 1425 1011 76 33 30

Sub Sarvak 6 1205 613 49 23 21

Table 5-2- Volume calculation report of Sarvak formation zones (NIOC)

50
5-4- Petrophysical Modeling

Figure 5-4- map of average Reservoir properties, effective porosity (left), Water saturation (right) and oil
in situ (bottom) (NIOC)

From Petrophysical model we can understand some properties of reservoir like Permeability
and porosity distribution or water saturation.

 The effective porosity map, shows the high porosity areas are in center and
southeast of the field.
 The estimated oil in-situ of Sarvak Reservoir is 547.10^6 (m3), which are located in
center of reservoir (under Sub sarvak top zone) and south of reservoir (Under Sub
Sarvak 3 zone).

52
5-5- Best enhanced oil recovery method for Kuh-e-Mund field of Sarvak reservoir

The characteristics of Sarvak reservoir was evaluated with the desirable extent of each EOR
methods, and the resulted was gained as follow:

1- Miscible injection of nitrogen and flue gas

By attending to this point that for nitrogen and flue gas injection, oil API degree of the
reservoir should be more than 35 and the oil should be light, so this method is not
recommended.
2- Miscible injection of hydrocarbon gas
Because the API degree of Sarvak reservoir is low, so hydrocarbon gas injection is
not recommended.
3- Miscible injection of CO2 gas
It seems inappropriate because API degree of Sarvak reservoir is low, and oil
viscosity is high in this reservoir, but by attending to new studies which were done
recently especially in Willmigtone reservoir in California or Bati Roman in Turkey, that
their API degree is in the range of Sarvak, these studies were successful, so more
surveys should be done in this field.
4- Gas injection immiscibly
This reservoir has appropriate parameters for immiscible injection, and can be used
before steam injection project. The studies have shown that nitrogen gas is more
appropriate than other gases for heavy oils reservoirs. Generally this method is
recommended for heavy oil reservoirs, in which there are no possibility to use
thermal methods.
5- Water injection
Water injection is not appropriate because the viscosity of reservoir oil is very high. It
should be considered that one of the reasons of water injection project failure in
heavy oil reservoirs, is that this process results in reduction of reservoir temperature
and then increase of oil viscosity.
6- Injection of Micellar and polymer solution compound, ASP, alkali materials, gel,
polymer
Generally chemical methods response better in sand rock reservoirs and also the oil
viscosity of reservoir should be very low, and the reservoir oil API should be more
than 20, so this method is not appropriate, meanwhile these methods usually are
used in order to improve water flooding methods.
7- WAG injection

53
8- This method seems inappropriate for high viscosity and low reservoir oil gravity but
by considering the researches which recently have been done, especially in Turkey
reservoirs that are similar to Iran reservoirs, this item should be surveyed.
9- Microbial method
From the reservoir rock point of view, there are required characteristics to do this
project but the oil API is lower than desirable extent, also in relation with the reservoir
fluid characteristics more information is needed to conclude more accurate.
10- Open recovery
This method is impossible because of high depth of the reservoir.
11- Combustion in situ
This method is more effective in sand rocks with high porosity. Regardless of the
reservoir type, other parameters are desirable for this process implementation.
12- Steam injection
The reservoir has all of the required characteristics for performing this process.
13- Cold production
Depth, porosity and pressure of the reservoir are not appropriate for this process.
14- SAGD, EA_SAGD, SAGP
Sarvak reservoir has the needed characteristics for these processes, but some
researches should be done in relation with the fractures conditions.
15- VAPEX
Its mechanism is such as SAGD, and its use seems suitable in this scope.

Miscible Injection of Nitrogen inappropriate

Miscible Injection of HC Gas inappropriate
Miscible Injection of CO2 more surveys
Gas Injection(immiscibly way) inappropriate
Water Injection inappropriate
Polymer, Alkaline or Gel inappropriate
WAG Injection more surveys
Microbial inappropriate
Surface mining/open recovery inappropriate
Combustion in situ inappropriate
Steam Injection PASS
Cold Production inappropriate
SAGD, EA-SAGD PASS
VAPEX PASS
Table 5-3- Heavy Oil Production Technologies and Technical Screening Criteria

54
5-6- Steam injection simulation with SAGD method in Kuh-e-mund field

As it was said in previous chapters, SAGD is an effective method in production of heavy oil
and bitumen. Clearly, in a SAGD project, steam is injected to a horizontal well which is
located on the top of another horizontal well (which is used as a production well).

This project can be applied by using several injection and production horizontal wells in
different points of the reservoir.

5-6-1- Thermodynamic properties of oil and steam

Here is the one I used to understand the issue myself. It is a plot of enthalpy, that is the
energy in the water (or steam), versus pressure. Pressure is measured in bars and is on a
log scale. There are also a number of isotherms plotted in red, isotherms are lines of
constant temperature. So for water at a particular pressure with a certain amount of energy
we can use this chart to read off both the state of the water (gas or liquid) and the
temperature.

Figure 5-5- Pressure vs. Enthalpy for water, showing phase, steam quality and temperatures as

isotherms (NIOC)

The thick black line is the phase envelope; to the left of the phase envelope water is liquid, to
the right it is steam. To get our eye in on the chart let's go along the horizontal line at one

55
bar of pressure and imagine boiling a kettle. At first the water is cold, as we add energy, the
kettle warms and the temperature rises, soon we reach the left hand side of the phase
envelope where the kettle begins to boil – you can see the 100ºC isotherm turns at right
angles just here – as we add more and more energy the temperature doesn't change, but all
the water turns into steam. Inside the phase envelope the dotted lines tell you the proportion
of steam, or steam quality. When we are at the right hand side of the phase envelope we
have 100% steam and the kettle has boiled dry. You can see it does take an awful lot of
energy to turn water into steam. But once it is steam, if we keep adding heat, taking the
temperature from 100ºC to 200ºC doesn't increase the energy in the steam by very much.

And that is the whole point of steam flooding. We inject steam to heat up the oil and to do
that we have to heat the whole reservoir, all the oil in it and to some extent the rocks above
and below as well. So we need a mechanism that delivers an awful lot of energy into the
reservoir. It is the energy released as steam condenses and turns back into water which
does that work.

As the pressure increases the enthalpy of condensation (illustrated on the chart by the
distance between the two dark lines) reduces until, at about 200bar, there is no difference
between steam and water and no enthalpy of condensation at all. So at 200bar steam is not
as efficient at transferring energy and heat into the reservoir. In fact at 200 bar steam that
has as much energy in it as steam at 1 bar and 100ºC, has a temperature of almost 400ºC.

The conventional limit for steam flooding is considered to be 3,000' which for a normally
pressured reservoir is about 90bar, just around the top of the green zone on the chart. At
that pressure the steam temperature is about 300ºC (600ºF). Most conventional downhole
components have a temperature limit of 150ºC (300ºF), it takes specially designed
equipment to work at such high temperatures, and there are few components rated for much
more than 300ºC. So, in the end, it is really the temperature of steam at reservoir pressure
that is the main reason why steam flooding has a practical depth limitation of about 3,000'

5-6-2- Steam quality

By attending to this point that boilers which are used for steam injection usually produce
some moister (wet) steam than dry steam, the quality of the produced steam should be
specified. Steam quality is calculated through following equation:

56
For two-phase steam (moist steam), its quality, temperature and pressure should be specific
to determine its other thermodynamic properties. Two properties of these thermodynamic
properties which are important in steam injection processes are specific volume and
enthalpy.

Specific volume:

The steam specific volume is calculated through the follow equation:

Volume of saturation liquid

Volume of Saturation Gas

When the pressure is increased in the reservoir, the steam volume decreases significantly,
in a steam injection process to the reservoir with average pressure 200psia, the steam will
have a volume four times more than the steam volume in a reservoir with the pressure of
800psia. By increase in occupied volume by steam, the steam is more in relation with the
reservoir internal areas and the sweeping action will be performed well. Steam injection in
lower pressure results increase of oil recovery, economically.

57
 Figure 5-6- the steam specific volume to saturation pressure (NIOC)

Also the volume of a steam barrel (CWE 350lbm) and the different steam qualities can be
gained through steam tables.

Figure 5-7- the steam specific volume to saturation temperature (NIOC)

58
5-7- Research method

Simulation is done for reservoirs with steam injection by SAGD method, and by considering
natural fractures and dual permeability system and model selection of the characteristics of
networking system and blocks dimensions in three points of coordinate axis.

In this study, the characteristics of the reservoir rock such as the fractures distance from
each other, fractures and matrix porosity, fractures and matrix permeability in three
dimensions, matrix and fractures thermal characteristics such as heat conduction of rock,
reservoir fluid characteristics involves the water in the fractures and their heavy oil and gas
and their compressibility, thermal reduction of the reservoir top and bottom rocks and fluid
characteristics (water and oil with no solvent gas), heavy oil and water molecular weight and
their compressibility and oil thermal expansion, critical temperature and pressure of water
and oil viscosity value at temperature and relative permeability values of oil – water and the
reservoir primary conditions as crack and matrix saturation and crack and matrix
temperature and producing information involves data related to injection and production well
as the pressure of the bottom of the well in the beginning and its maximum for injection well
and its minimum for production well and the value of injective steam are the factors which
have been considered and during different scenarios of steam injection and its economic
optimizing condition, have been surveyed.

5-7-1- The model description

In this work, the employed simulator was CMG-STARS 93.00. Due to high run time because
of large area of Kuh-e Mond, a rectangular sector of the field with dimension of 900 × 600 ×
300 ft was selected as base case model. To exclude grid sensitivity of the results, the grid
sensitivity analysis has been done and 15 × 10 × 15 cells in i, j, k coordinate were selected
as reservoir grid numbers (figure 5-8). Average porosity, permeability and irreducible water
saturation of water-wet matrix were set to 13%, 50 md and 20%, respectively. Formation
thermal conductivity and rock heat capacity of matrix were set to 24 Btu/ft3. °F and 32
Btu/Day.ft.°F. The Matrix properties are summarized in Table 5-1.We considered two
horizon well one producer and an Injector. The considered time for this study is 10 years.
Modeling the fracture networks is one of the challenges faced by reservoir engineers and
geoscientists when study naturally fractured reservoirs. Therefore, to simulate naturally
fractured reservoirs, the dual permeability model has been employed in this study. The dual
permeability models, allows one matrix porosity and one fracture porosity per grid block,
where the matrix is connected to the fracture in the same grid block. Fracture porosities are
connected to neighboring fracture porosities, and the same holds true for neighboring matrix
porosities. The fractures with permeability of 2000 md made a network fracture with porosity

59
of 0.05 and 80 % oil saturation. The oil thermal conductivity in the fractures was set to 16
Btu/ft3. °F.

Figure 5-8- Reservoir simulation model

5-7-2 The model network

The model network is considered Cartesian with 2250 blocks (15 block in the x axis, 10
block in y axis and 15 block in z axis), the properties of the designed model is shown in table
5-1.

The block number 2250

Dimension in x axis 900 (Ft)
Dimension in y axis 600 (Ft)
Dimension in z axis 300 (Ft)
Table 5-4- the reservoir dimensions

5-7-3- Properties of the reservoir rocks and fluid

Properties of the reservoir rock and the related viscosity tables which are used in the
simulation (Base Case) are shown in the follows:

The reservoir primary pressure (psi) 1400

O
Primary temperature (F ) 150
Water primary saturation degree Matrix (%) 20
Oil primary saturation degree (%) 80

61
 Porosity matrix (%) 12
Porosity fracture (%) 5
Kh fracture (md) 2000
Kh matrix (md) 50
Rock Heat Capacity (Btu/ft3. °F) 32
Steam quality 0.9
Steam Injection Rate (bbl/day) 20
Formation thermal conductivity (Btu/ft3) 24

Table 5-5- Properties of the reservoir rock and fluid

0.99
0.985
Specific Gravity

0.98
0.975
0.97
0.965
0.96
0.955
0.95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Temperature,° C

Figure 5-9- The range of oil specific gravity changes at temperature in the reservoir

1,000,000
Kinematic Viscosity, CS

100,000

10,000

1,000

100

10

1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Temperature, °C

Figure 5-10- The range of viscosity changes at temperature

60
 25

20

Frequency,%
15

10

Porosity Ranges, %

Figure 5-11- Porosity distribution in the reservoir

5-8- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This simulation is done by considering two wells, one injection well and the other production
well. After running the model, for economic optimizing of the process, a desirable result has
been gained about the injective steam properties, its rate, the distance between the wells
and the wells position. The most effective factor in this process is the rate of injection fluid.
The sensitivity of the model was tested for the following parameters:

1. Steam Injection Rate

2. Cost Analysis

3. Well distance

4. Well position

5. Porosity

6. Permeability

5-8-1- Base Case Analysis

Results show that Steam-Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) process was efficient and has a
reasonable recovery factor. Cumulative production oil was around 1263800 (bbl) and
recovery factor of 32 (%). The production was started approximately 200 days after start of
the process.

62
 35
30

Recovery Factor (%)

25
20
15
Base Case
10
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-12- Recovery factor of base case in 10 year

900000
cumulative produced water(bbl)

800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
Base Case
300000
200000
100000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time(day)

Figure 5-13- total produced water of base case in 10 years

1400000
cumulative produced oil (bbl)

1200000

1000000

800000

600000
Base Case
400000

200000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-14- cumulative produced oil of base case in 10 years

63
5-8-2- Steam Injection rate

In figure 5-15 the oil recovery rate is shown for different Rate of injection. This graph shows
that the most rate of oil production is related to injection fluid Rate equal to 35 barrels per
day and the least is related to Rate equal to 5, but from Rate 20 to 35 barrels per day, the
difference in oil recovery is very low and it can be concluded that 20 barrels per day is
optimized for the rate of steam injection.

35%

30%

25%
Recovery factor

rate 5
20% Rate 10

15% Rate 20
Rate 25
10%
Rate 30
5%
Rate 35
0%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-15- Oil recovery rate in 10 years

In figure 5-16 the recovery factor after one year is specified. As it is shown, in short time
interval from injection beginning, we cannot see good recovery in different Rates, because
oil was not warm in primary times to reduce viscosity and flow oil to production well. Then by
reservoir warming and viscosity reduction and the role of gravity drive force, production
increased. For getting better results and fast reaching to oil recovery, it is necessary to heat
the neighbor environments of well in order to oil viscosity reduction and have better gravity
drive.

The researches show that steam alternative injection will be very effective before applying of
SAGD process in order to fast reach to oil production in the beginning of the project.

64
 0.5

Recovery Factor %
0.4
rate 5
0.3
Rate 10
0.2 Rate 20
Rate 25
0.1
Rate 30
0 Rate 35
0 100 200 300 400
Time (day)

Figure 5-16- Oil recovery rate in 1 year

In figure 5-17 the cumulative produced oil with different injection Rate is shown. As it is
specified as the graph related to recovery, here the most rate of oil production is for Rate
with 35 barrels per day but its difference with Rate 20 barrels per day is low.

Figure 5-17- The total rate of produced oil in ten years at different injection Rate

In figure 5-18 total rate of produced oil at different injection Rate in different times is shown.

65
 1400000

Cumulative produced oil (bbl/day) 1200000

t=30
1000000 t=270

800000 t=365
t=500
600000
t=730
400000 t=920
t=2555
200000
t=3100
0 t=3650
0 10 20 30 40

Steam Injection Rate (bbl/day)

Figure 5-18- total rate of produced oil at different injection Rate in different times

In figure 5-19 the rate of produced oil in each injective Rate is specified to total water cut. As
it is clarify in this graph, the range of water cut is constant till Rate equal to 15, but more than
this rate has great increase in Rate of water cut. We can conclude that the Rate equal to 20
is optimized.

63
62.5 Rate 35
62
61.5
Water Cut %

Rate 30
61
60.5
Rate 25
60
59.5
Rate 20
59 Rate 10
Rate 5
58.5
Rate 15
58
1050000 1100000 1150000 1200000 1250000 1300000 1350000
Cumulative Oil (bbl/day)

Figure 5-19- total range of produced oil in ten years at water cut

66
By attending to this point that the results of Rate 15 and 20 are similar, the range of water
cut of these two Rate is shown at time, but as it is observed in figure 5-20, the results are
very similar.

Figure 5-20- The comparison of water cut between Rate 15 and 20 barrels for everyday

5-8-3- Cost Analysis

In figure 5-21 the cost is drawn at different Rates. It can be concluded from this graph that,
the cost of produced oil is not so increased by lower Rates of 20 barrels per day, but more
than 20, the injection cost has significant increase, so it is concluded from this graph that
Rate equal to 20 is optimized.

450000
Rate 35
400000
350000
Rate 30
300000
Rate 25
250000
Cost ($)

Rate 20
200000 Rate 15
150000 Rate 10
100000 Rate 5
50000
0
1050000 1100000 1150000 1200000 1250000 1300000 1350000
Cumulative Produced Oil (bbl/day)

Figure 5-21- The cost range at total produced oil in each injection Rate

67
 The rate of
Injection cost Total injection in Steam injection
produced oil in
(Dollar) ten years (bbl) Rate (bbl/day)
10 years (bbl)
54750 1105700 18250 5
109500 1208900 36500 10
164250 1265300 54750 15
219000 1291300 73000 20
273750 1305000 91250 25
328500 1313700 109500 30
383250 1317500 127750 35

Table 5-6- The steam cost for different injection Rate

In table 5-6 the total rate of produced oil and steam injection cost, at each injection Rate, are
calculated 3 $ for each barrel. Also in figure 5-22 the relative cost of each Rate to the lower
rates is calculated and shown that like figure 5-21 that 20 barrels per day is optimized.

1.2
Rate 5
1 Rate 10
Relative Cost

0.8

0.6
Rate 15
0.4
Rate 20
Rate 25
0.2 Rate 30
Rate 35
0
1000000 1100000 1200000 1300000 1400000
Cumulative Produced oil (bbl)

Figure 5-22- Economic analysis of total range of produced oil in relation with cost increase
toward injection Rate increase.

Totally, it is concluded from the graphs that our production rate is optimized when our
injection rate is between 15 and 20 (bbl/day), and it is economically profitable.

The injection Rate as the most important factor and cost for oil production has been
surveyed and analyzed, but other factors were surveyed in this experiment and following
results have been gained:

5-8-4- The position of injection and production wells in the reservoir

It seems that the well location is one of the important and effective factors in SAGD oil
production, because parameters such as, enough extension of steam area, blocks heating

68
and movement of heated oil under gravity drainage toward production well, depend on the
position of injection and production well. So in discussed model, the places of the wells are
changed in several forms:

A- Both wells should be located in the center and the production well should be in the
bottom of injection well.
B- Both wells should be located in the corner and the production well should be in the
bottom of injection well.
C- Both wells should be located in the corner and the injection well should be in the
bottom of production well.

And the results were as follows:

In figure 5-23, the recovery factor has significant difference for the three statuses. It means
that the well location has an effective role in recovery factor. In (c) status, the least value of
recovery factor is seen, and it is in maximum in (A) status. Because in (A) status, by locating
the wells in the center, steam area will be formed well, be extended similarly and all of the
blocks will be under the effect of steam area. Heavy oil viscosity reduction will be done well
in all of the blocks and oil gravity drainage will be gained with the most value, and then the
recovery factor will be maximized. So we can conclude that the well location has a significant
effect on recovery factor.

35

30
Recovery FFactor(%)

25
Inject:1 1 10
20
Producer:1 1 1
15 Inject:7 5 1
Producer:7 5 10
10
Inject:1 1 1
5 Producer:1 1 10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-23- The rate of oil recovery by attending to the location of injection and production wells

69
 900
800
700
Oil Produced (bbl/day) 600
Inject:1 1 10
500 Producer:1 1 1
400 Inject:7 5 1
300 Producer:7 5 10

200 Inject:1 1 1
Producer:1 1 10
100
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-24- The range of daily production oil by attending to the location of injection and production
wells

In figure 5-24, the produced oil has difference for the three statuses. It is concluded that well
location is important parameters to analyze. For (A) status it has the most value and in (C) it
has the least value.

In figure 5-25, the cumulative produced oil has significant difference for the three statuses.
The difference is low for (A) and (B) status. In (c) status, the least oil will be produced,
because a portion of oil will remain at the bottom and won’t be produced.

1600000
Cumulative Produced oil (bbl/day)

1400000
1200000
1000000 Inject:1 1 10
Producer:1 1 1
800000
Inject:7 5 1
600000
Producer:7 5 10
400000 Inject:1 1 1
200000 Producer:1 1 10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-25- The total range of produced oil by considering the location of production and
injection wells

71
In figure 5-26, much difference is seen between statuses (A), (B) and (C). So the location of
wells is effective in water production. Difference is low for (A) and (B) status. In (c) status,
the least water will be produced, it can happen because of soon mid-breaking.

Finally, it can be concluded that if the wells are located in the center and the production well
is under the injection well, we have the best location for the wells, so we can maximize
recovery and oil production.

900000
800000
700000
Cumulative water (bbl)

600000
Inject:1 1 10
500000 Producer:1 1 1
400000 Inject:7 5 1
300000 Producer:7 5 10

200000 Inject:1 1 1
Producer:1 1 10
100000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-26- The total range of produced water by considering the location of production and injection
wells

5-8-5- Surveying the distance between injection and production wells (Vertical)

One of the parameters which has effective role in oil production in SAGD method, is the
distance between injection and production wells. Because it effects in heat wasting through
reservoir bottom rocks and water production value, because of fingering. So in the discussed
model we change the distance between production and injection wells in three statuses.

A- Injection well be three blocks upper than production well

B- Injection well be six blocks upper than production well
C- Injection well be nine blocks upper than production well

And the results are as follows:

In figure 5-27, the difference is observable in three statuses. Recovery factor is diferrenet for
each status, so the distance between the wells has role in recovery factor. The difference is
very low in statuses (B) and (C), and in (A) status, the minimum recovery factor is gained.
Because in this status since production well is located three blocks lower than injection well,
an amount of steam heat is transformed to bottom rocks and it is wasted, or we can have

70
steam in production well before it can help to reduce oil viscosity. So the range of oil
viscosity and its gravity drive is low, and then recovery factor is minimized.

35

30
Recovery Factor (%)

25
Inject:1 1 1
20 Producer:1 1 10
15 Inject:1 1 7
Producer:1 1 10
10
Inject:1 1 4
5 Producer:1 1 10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-27- The range of oil recovery factor by considering vertical distance of production and injection
wells

900
800
Oil Produced (bbl/day)

700
600
Inject:1 1 1
500 Producer:1 1 10
400 Inject:1 1 7
300 Producer:1 1 10
200 Inject:1 1 4
Producer:1 1 10
100
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Time (day)

Figure 5-28- The range of daily oil production by considering vertical distance of production and injection
wells

In figure 5-28 produced oil Rate has different values for the three statuses and oil Rate is
minimized in (A) status. The reason was said in previous part. So it is concluded that the
wells’ distance are effective in produced oil Rate.

72
In figure 5-29 as it is seen, there is low difference between the three statuses, (A) status has
the least value which was described in previous part. In figure 5-30, the range of produced
water is similar for three statuses, so the wells distance has little effect on the water
production.

By attending to the issues of this part, it can be concluded that (C) status, is the best status
for well locating. Because recovery factor and the oil production is more than the two other
statuses and the rate of produced water is lower than the two other statuses.

Typically 5 m vertical spacing is considered between the horizontal injection well and the
horizontal production well in the field conditions.

1400000
Cumulative Produced oil (bbl)

1200000

1000000
Inject:1 1 1
800000
Producer:1 1 10
600000 Inject:1 1 7
Producer:1 1 10
400000
Inject:1 1 4
200000 Producer:1 1 10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-29- The total range of produced oil by considering vertical distance of production and
injection wells

800000
700000
Cumulative Water (bbl)

600000
500000 Inject:1 1 1
Producer:1 1 10
400000
Inject:1 1 7
300000
Producer:1 1 10
200000 Inject:1 1 4
100000 Producer:1 1 10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

73
Figure 5-30- The total range of produced water by considering vertical distance of production
and injection wells

5-8-6- The survey of matrix porosity

The rate of matrix porosity is one of the important parameter in oil production with SAGD
method, because it states the range of pore volume and oil in situ. So it has an important
role in production oil rate. In discussed model, the matrix porosity has been surveyed for 0.1,
0.13 and 0.15 values, and the results are as follows:

In figure 5-31, there is a significant difference for recovery factor between different statuses
of matrix porosity. The lowest recovery factor value is seen for porosity 0.15, and the highest
value is seen for porosity 0.1. Three different porosity values were selected to verify the
effect of porosity on SAGD process, note that permeability values were kept fixed. Results
illustrate that lower porosity causes a higher recovery factor while the amount of SOR is
tremendously higher. The reason is that for a reservoir with lower porosity the initial oil in
place is lower so lower amount of heat and energy is needed to heat up the reservoir.
Therefore, the process in a lower porosity reservoir with a same steam injection rate and
same period of injection becomes mature sooner but due to this lower porosity most of the
injected heat will be lost due to the conduction to the reservoir rock. In general, reservoirs
with higher porosity have better quality for SAGD process considering commercial and
economic issues like SOR.

40
35
Recovery Factor (%)

30
25
20 POR=13
15 POR=15
10 POR=10
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-31- The range of oil recovery at porosity changes

In figure 5-28 it is seen that the oil produced Rate is different for different statuses of
porosity, which is minimized for porosity 0.1 and maximized for porosity 0.15. So porosity is
effective in produced oil Rate.

74
 900

Oil Produced (bbl/day)

800
700
600
500
POR=10
400
300 POR=15
200 POR=13
100
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-32- The range of daily oil production at porosity changes

In figure 5-32, it is observed that the cumulative produced oil, is different for different
statuses, which is minimized for porosity 0.1 and maximized for porosity 0.15, and its reason
was mentioned in the beginning.

In figure 5-33, cumulative produced water in different statuses is observable. Because, in fix
initial saturation of water, the pore space is more in high porosity and for this status, there is
more water value than in low porosity, so the oil of upper blocks will fall to downer blocks
(because of viscosity reduction by heating of steam), in one moment, the downer matrix
block is completely saturated by oil and the water of block exists from the block, which
results in more water production in high porosity status. So porosity is effective on the value
of produced water.

1600000
Cumulative Produced Oil

1400000
1200000
(bbl/day)

1000000
800000 POR=10
600000 POR=15
400000 POR=13
200000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-33- The total range of produced oil at porosity differences

75
 800000

Cumulative Water (bbl)

700000

600000

500000

400000 POR=10
POR=15
300000
POR=13
200000

100000

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-34- The total range of produced water at porosity differences

In general, reservoirs with higher porosity have better quality for SAGD process considering
commercial and economic issues like SOR.

5-8-7- The survey of matrix permeability

Naturally fractured reservoirs are usually modeled using two permeability properties due to
matrix system and fracture network. In this part, matrix permeability effects are evaluated.
For this purpose permeability of matrix system was increased from 50 to 100 and 500 (mD).
Figure 5-35 shows that higher matrix permeability has significant effect on recovery factor. In
fact, higher matrix permeability resulted in faster and higher drainage of oil from matrixes to
the fractures and therefore improvement in oil recovery eventually the economy of the
process.
In figure 5-35, recovery factor for 500 millidarcy (mD) is maximized and for 5 mD is
minimized, because as it was mentioned by increase in permeability, passing and flowing of
oil and gravity drainage of hot oil will be more and faster, so the value of cumulative recovery
factor related to 500 mD will be maximized.

In figure 5-36, amount of Produced oil will be more for 500 mD and it is maximized, compare
to 50 and 100 mD.

76
 45

40

Recovery Factor (%)

35

30

25
PER=50 md

20
PER=100 md
15 PER=500 md
10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-35- The rate of oil recovery at permeability changes

900

800
Oil Produced (bbl/day)

700

600

500 PER=50 md

400 PER=100 md
PER=500 md
300

200
md
100

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-36- The rate of daily oil production at permeability changes

In figure 5-37, it is observed that scenario of Permeability=500 will have the most cumulative
produced oil compare to other scenarios.

77
 1600000

Cumulative produced oil (bbl/day)

1400000

1200000

1000000
PER=50 md
800000
PER=100 md
600000
PER=500 md
400000

200000

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-37- The total range of oil production at permeability changes

900000
800000
Cumulative water (bbl)

700000
600000
500000
PER=50 md
400000
PER=100 md
300000
PER=500 md
200000
100000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (day)

Figure 5-38- The total range of water production at permeability changes

In figure 5-38 it is seen that the produced water rate in different statuses had been affected.
So we can see the most produced water is from scenario which has Permeabity =500 and
the least is for permeability equal to 50 md.

78
 Chapter six

Conclusion and recommendations

6-1- Conclusion

1- Producing heavy oil reservoirs can have proper recovery based on engineering
principles.
2- By considering the reduction of new resources of hydrocarbon, increase of recovery
from the reservoirs is necessary after the primary production. The existence of heavy
oil reservoirs in Iran and lack of producing from them, is crucial.
3- In selection of the best production methods from heavy oil reservoirs, some factors
such as reservoir fluid and rock properties, can be very useful in this action.
4- The most effective methods to increase recovery from heavy oil reservoirs are
thermal methods. Before selection of the best method for heavy oil recovery, the use
of technical knowledge and the performed researches in the advanced countries of
the world such as Canada, is very useful.
5- Sarvak reservoir of Kuh-e-Mund field is from carbonate and fractured type and by
attending to this point that most of the world reservoirs are from sandstone, in
relation to this reservoir (fracture carbonate reservoir involving heavy oil), basic
researches should be done.
6- By considering the recovery parameters screening and the results of simulation, the
best options for the heavy oil of Sarvak reservoir of Kuh-e-Mund field is steam
injection methods, such as VAPEX, WASP, SAGD and EA-SAGD and immiscible
gas injection.
7- The simulation which was done on the Sarvak reservoir of Kuh-e-Mond field just
involves a part of the reservoir as an indicator (sector model) and is distributable for
all reservoirs.
8- In the study of the performed simulation, the rate of injective Rate is experimented as
the most important controllable factor of oil recovery, and by surveying of different
injective Rate it was resulted that, for the designed Rate model, the optimized
injective steam is between 15 and 20 barrels per day (equal to water).
9- By using newer software in the future, identification of total reservoir information and
designing the reservoir real model, the real result will be gained.

79
6-2- Recommendations

In order to reach a general conclusion about enhanced oil recovery of Iran reservoirs and
also quantitative results about Sarvak reservoir of Kuh-e-Mund field, it is recommended that
the following titles be studied and considered.

1- The study of Kuh-e-Mund field reservoir simulation as sector model and

consideration of other variables of the reservoir and increase of considered changing
scope in this study (PC,KC, K,P, …)
2- The general study of Sarvak reservoir (a full field study) to specify the gained
qualitative results in a quantitative form under different production scenarios to make
a better selection for recovery.
3- The repetition of the study method of Kuh-e-Mund field for other heavy oil reservoirs,
as simulation study (sector model) and then the reservoir general study.
4- The study about using gas injection process to horizontal wells and the path for
locating the injection and production wells together, to specify the optimized
conditions for non thermal recovery and its comparison with steam injection.
5- Performing the experimental studies in fire pipe in order to provide primary data for
those heavy oil reservoirs with appropriate parameters in using combustion in situ.

81
References

1- M.Baviere – basic concept in Enhanced oil recovery process – New York 1991
2- Don W. Green, G. Paul White – Enhanced oil recovery – 1998
3- M.Latil – Enhanced oil Recovery – Edition Technip, Paris – 1980
4- M.M.Shumcher, Enhanced Recovery or Residual Oil, Capture 19 pp.4-11,1980
5- Evaluation of IOR potential of Petroleum reservoirs – Alex T, Turta, Fred wassmuth,
B. Maini, K.Singhal – Petroleum recovery institute, Calgary No. 13 – 2000
6- Jack Allen , S. qing sun, C&C reservoirs, inc , control on recovery factor in fractured
Reservoirs – SPE – 2003
7- E.Walls, C.Palmgren , K.Kisman ,Residual oil saturation inside the steam chamber
during SAGD – JCPT – 2003
8- R.M. Buter , C.T.Yee – Progress in the situ Recovery of heavy oils and Bituman –
JCPT – 2002
9- T.N Nasr, G Beaulieu, H. Golbek, G.Heck, Novel Expanding Solvent – SAGD
process (EA-SAGD) – Alberta Research council – 2003
10- Dr. Maria Antonieta Barrufet – Class note for PETE 609 Module 1 – 2001
11- Tarek Ahmad, Handbook of reservoir Engineering. Gulf publishing, 2000 p. 719
12- EOR Screening Criteria Revisited-Part-J.J. Taber, F.D. Martin, R.s.seright-SPE 3538
13- A.sahni 6M.Kumar, Electromagnetic Heating methods for heavy oil reservoirs-SPE
14- Canadian association of Petroleum production accounting web version 1
15- M.Haghighi, Y.C.Yortoso, Visualization of steam injection in fractured using
micromoles
16- R.Bulter,the steam and gas push (SAGP)-jcpt-2007
17- R.M Butler, C.T.Yee-progress in the situ recovery of heavy oil and bitumen-jcpt-2002
18- Mustafa Cabanglu, A numerical study of evaluate the use of WAG as an EOR
method for oil recovery improvement at B.KOZLUCA field, Turkey-turkish petroleum
crop, TAPO-2001
19- Iranian national oil company website

20- "BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015," British Petroleum, June 2015.
21- G. Glatz, "A Primer on Enhanced Oil Recovery." Physics 240, Stanford University,
Fall 2013.
22- A. Z. Abidin, T. Puspasari, and W.A. Nugroho, "Polymers For Enhanced Oil
Recovery Technology," Procedia Chem. 4, 11 (2012).

80
23- "An Introduction to Enhanced Oil Recovery Techniques," Sino Australia Oil and Gas
Pty. Ltd., 6 Jun 13.
24- G. V. Chilingar, J. O Robertson, and S Kumar, Eds., Surface Operations In
Petroleum Production, II (Elsevier, 1989), pp. 238-244.
25- Dusseault, M.B. (2006). Future trends in oil and gas industry, Canadian heavy oil
resources and new production technologies, GEOMEC Oil Fields Geomechanics
International, available online: www.geomec.com/products/essays/essay01.doc,
(Accessed on 13 Feb 2007).
26- Singhal, A.K., Das, S.K., Leggitt, S.M., Kasraie, M. & Ito, Y. (1996). Screening of
reservoirs for exploitation by application of steam assisted gravity drainage/VAPEX
processes, SPE 37144.
27- Morgenstern, N.R. 1962. A relation between hydraulic fracture pressure and tectonic
stresses.Geofis. Pura Applic. 52, 104.
28- Xu, T., Chen, Ch., Liu, Ch., Zhang, Sh., Wu, Y., & Zhang, P. (2009). A novel way to
enhance the oil recovery ratio by Streptococcus sp. BT-003. J. Basic Microbial, Vol.
49, pp. (477-481).
29- Banat, I.M. (1995). Biosurfactants production and possible uses in microbial
enhanced oil recovery and oil pollution remediation: a review. Biores. Technol., Vol.
51, pp. (1-12)
30- SPECIAL REPORT: EOR/HEAVY OIL SURVEY: 2010 WORLDWIDE EOR
SURVEY.
31- Germain sub-surface plan - www.laricinaenergy.com
32- Oliveros L. R. et al. (2013) Design Parameters and technique Evaluation of
Combustion Processes from Tibe testing, SPE 165458.
33- International Energy agency website, www.iea.org
34- BGR Report of the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, AGEB
2015, LBEG 2015, BMU 2013
35- Advanced CERT Canada Inc.www.adcertcanada.com
36- wiki.aapg.org/drive_mechanisms_and_recovery

82
 Appendix 2
Raw data of simulation

Rate 5

Rate 10

I
Rate 15

Rate 20

II
Rate 25

Rate 30

III
Rate 35

IV
 Appendix 2

Simulation code

V
VI
VII
VIII
IX